No Safety Advantage on Glass Cockpit

[Piloto]

Have you noticed that all new pilot's watches still have the old traditional minutes and hours hands and that sport cars like the Corvette still have the traditional steam gauges. I still miss the rotary dial phones.

 

José

[DaV8or]

Quote: Piloto

I still miss the rotary dial phones.

 

José

[Parker_Woodruff]

Go lose your vacuum system at night flying airways between the mountains of New Mexico. There is no horizon. Digital backup would have been nice there. Fortunately I realized what was failing and kept the right side up. I was also fortunate that El Paso was still in view more than 100 miles behind me. 

[OR75]

Glass looks good and would probably make more impression on a passenger.

From my perspective, the (only) reason I would trade steam gages to glass would not be for the appearance or potential safety (to be demonstrated) but actually for what is behind the pannel: lower weight and less clutter / cleaner wiring.  

I am sticking to steam gages.

[PTK]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

 

Go lose your vacuum system at night flying airways between the mountains of New Mexico. There is no horizon. Digital backup would have been nice there. Fortunately I realized what was failing and kept the right side up. I was also fortunate that El Paso was still in view more than 100 miles behind me. 

 

[PTK]

I don't know why people call our instruments "steam gauges." The connotation is that they are antiquated. On the contrary they are precision aircraft instruments required to be in the panel. 

[jwilkins]

Quote: allsmiles

I don't know why people call our instruments "steam gauges." The connotation is that they are antiquated. On the contrary they are precision aircraft instruments required to be in the panel. 

[1964-M20E]

Hopefully I’m not contradicting my statement earlier but an Aspen in the middle to replace the AI and the DG and a CDI I can agree with that and I’ve even thought about it.  Remove the tapes for ALT and VSI for less clutter on the Aspen screen replace one CDI with the old school AI and we’d be good.

Yes a moving map GPS  panel mountedis very nice to have. 

As stated above you can fly using two king 170Bs and be safe though pilot workload may be increased IMHO.

Good point in 20 years who will be supporting a G1000 of course the same might be said for the vacuum gyro.  Of course if the glass panels were cheap enough say 1k or 2k each with plug and play owner replacement who would care if you put a new one in every 8 to 10 years.

[PTK]

Quote: jwilkins

Because the original round gauges with needles and a scale were pressure gauges on steam engines. The legacy IS antiquated. Acknowledging a long and rich development history is not necessarily derogatory. 

Jim

[Vref]

I am not going to join this discussion as I am riding on a wave of joy......see the sandel thread...I am steamed glass jocky soon

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: allsmiles

[PTK]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

[aviatoreb]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

[carusoam]

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.

 

 

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

José

 

 

[aviatoreb]

Quote: Piloto

Have you noticed that all new pilot's watches still have the old traditional minutes and hours hands and that sport cars like the Corvette still have the traditional steam gauges. I still miss the rotary dial phones.

 

José

[orangemtl]

Among the things I most like in a glass cockpit:

Moving map. Reassuring and useful.

Engine monitoring: CHTs, EGTs, etc.

Synthetic vision (not a necessity, but still: nice)

Weather and lightning info

Constantly revised distance/ETA info from origin to waypoint.

Elevation info, including highlighted 'excess' elevations. Reassuring, when flying at night. Nobody ever intentionally flew into a mountain they knew was in front of them.

I suspect many of these (exc engine info)can be placed on an IPad (or 2), and mounted/placed conveniently in the cockpit w/o messing with existing gauges. Extremely cost effective, and provides incremental info. There IS an app for that: and that, and that too. If I had a pure round gauge panel, I'd do this, and pocket the $000's otherwise spent on an Aspen.

Many things are not a necessity. But: so what. Planes aren't either, for many of us. Nor GPS in our cars. Nor satellite TV. If ever I find myself the owner of a CJ6 Chinese trainer, it'll remain a pure steam gauge device, becasue I don't have to go anywhere in it. Ditto a Cub, or Navion, or vintage Vtail B35.  For a new aircraft to come out with 1985 technology, however is simply indefensible.

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: allsmiles

ok, let's examine this.

 You can OH King HSI and AI for a lot less than you think. - fly to another shop (gas). remove (labor). Send out (freight). overhaul (depends on what failed).

Also you are assuming that somehow to take them out and put in an Aspen its an upgrade that will add value to an airplane. I find glass equipped planes more marketable. 

It is not an upgrade at all. Two exact planes and the same price.  Which would you pick, glass or steam?

Not everyone agrees with this logic. I certainly don't! Your opinion is fine.  I just don't agree with your reasoning to arrive at your opinion.

All things being equal if I were considering two airplanes one with an Aspen vs another with a KFC system (I absolutely love my KFC150) I'd choose the latter!

Are we debating PFDs/MFDs or autopilots?  KFC150 is an Autopilot.  Aspen works with KFCs.

I would. (I'm referring strictly to an Aspen not an EHSI.) An EHSI is an upgrade I'd consider.

So you find only the NAV information of the glass valuable, but not pitch, airspeed, altitude, etc.?

[jetdriven]

Parker, that ahs happened to me twice, fortunately VFR both times.  As soon as we were able, we installed an electric horizon.  Statistically, IFR pilots in small planes who lose vacuum also lose control.

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

 

Go lose your vacuum system at night flying airways between the mountains of New Mexico. There is no horizon. Digital backup would have been nice there. Fortunately I realized what was failing and kept the right side up. I was also fortunate that El Paso was still in view more than 100 miles behind me. 

 

[galt1074]

As a guy with about 2600 hours on "steam gauges" and the last 300 hours or so in an aircraft with a full glass panel and a HUD, I would say the following:

Reading the steam gauges is intuitive simply based on the movement of the needles. As many of you have said seeing trend data based on the movement of the hand on a clock-style instrument is a matter of just seeing the needle move as opposed to reading the actual numbers. In addition these gauges are simple to operate (besides dialing in your baro and adjusting the horizon line, no inputs at all in most GA aircraft), and they are fairly reliable when they are electrically operated. C-130s don't have vacuum systems, everything runs off of AC electrical power cleaned through a series of transformer-rectifiers and AC-DC-AC converters.

However, with proper training and well-formatted data presentation the flat panel displays are more reliable (in my experience) and feed more information to the pilot who can manage to take it all in. Especially when that data has been processed to the extent that instead of flying pitch attitudes you are on a flight path indicated by a climb-dive-marker and energy cues that provide both instantaneous feedback and trend data on pitch and power. Once you have learned to fly on these instruments and embrace their capabilities and limitations, I can tell you it quickly becomes a challenge to scan a six-pack.

Now the HUD part is a whole-other-level of safety but that is not something you will likely see on a GA aircraft any time soon. It suffices to say that if my student roles into a 60 degree bank and his altitude changes by more than 10 feet and his airspeed changes by more than a couple knots, he has some explaining to do because of the cues in the HUD.

In short, I think they are a double edged sword. If you are properly trained and proficient with the use of the various systems involved, glass cockpits provide exponential improvements in the data the pilot is presented with. Without that training and proficiency the differences in the way the data is presented coupled with the workload requirements to ensure you are "flying formation with the box" (keeping the GPS and the glass cues updated) can quickly overload a single pilot in IMC. I personally think the reliability of solid-state electronics far outweighs that of vacuum gauges and since I am comfortable with glass now I would be seeking that in an airplane purchase.

My two cents.

Greg

[PTK]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

ok, let's examine this.

 You can OH King HSI and AI for a lot less than you think. - fly to another shop (gas). remove (labor). Send out (freight). overhaul (depends on what failed).

Also you are assuming that somehow to take them out and put in an Aspen its an upgrade that will add value to an airplane. I find glass equipped planes more marketable. 

It is not an upgrade at all. Two exact planes and the same price.  Which would you pick, glass or steam?

Not everyone agrees with this logic. I certainly don't! Your opinion is fine.  I just don't agree with your reasoning to arrive at your opinion.

All things being equal if I were considering two airplanes one with an Aspen vs another with a KFC system (I absolutely love my KFC150) I'd choose the latter!

Are we debating PFDs/MFDs or autopilots?  KFC150 is an Autopilot.  Aspen works with KFCs.

I would. (I'm referring strictly to an Aspen not an EHSI.) An EHSI is an upgrade I'd consider.

So you find only the NAV information of the glass valuable, but not pitch, airspeed, altitude, etc.?

[1964-M20E]

It would be nice if Aspen could or would offer an electronic (with analog display) replacement for analog (steam) gauges and if this replacement could be at the same price as purchasing new analog mechanical gauges.  I like data available but it needs to be presented in an easy to use interface.  It is a fact of nature we as human are analog in nature and we can see movement a lot easier than we can see and interpret a digital numeric display.

 

 

Also as I agree with Allsmiles do not require an analog back up to the electronics.  I fought this battle 15 years ago in the offshore industry when PLC’s became popular. 

By the way a few years back I saw a picture of one of these fancy glass PFD displays and the front glass display was removed and behind it was an analog AI electric powered gyro that looked just like what you would see in your panel.  They may be different today but “do not pay any attention to the man behind the curtain”.

[Hank]

Here's a revealing quote from the AOPA study:

“We consistently see more accidents during takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds in glass panel airplanes,” Kenny said.

The difference is smallest among the low-power models, and the reason for it remains unclear. One possibility is that analog gauges can be more easily interpreted during rapid changes in airspeed and altitude. Pilots with glass panels may also be “spending more time staring at the displays instead of looking outside,” Kenny said.

If glass panels had airspeed and altitude readouts that are not moving tapes composed of little numbers that must be concentrated on to tell the value, but were instead readable at a glance, then this increased accident rate may actually improve. Interestingly enough, though, there was virtually no difference in the overall accident rate except in these operations where glass-panel aircraft had more accidents.

This is a clear opportunity for the glass panel manufacturer to make something useful for GA pilots. Airspeed tapes may make good sense in an F-18 where speed may range from 140-1800 knots, but my interest is primarily in the 50-90 knot range for the flight phases shown above, and my Vne is a whopping 174 knots, not a huge range from stall.

[Piloto]

You bring a good point Frank. It is easier for humans to interpret a moving object over a surface than conveying its numerical coordinates. This is why moving maps are easier to read than lat/long data. Also notice that a horizon depiction is much easier to interpret than a numerical roll/pitch angle. Same when shooting an ILS. The CDI is much easier to read than a numerical display of the deviation. This fact is most important when scanning multiple parameters. The only time numerical display has the advantage is for accuracy, range and resolution like when measuring engineering parameters such as frequency, voltage, pressure, temperaure and others. But even in engineering oscilloscopes and other measuring devices show the data in a graphical form such as earth quake sensors.

José

 

[John Pleisse]

Quote: Hank

Here's a revealing quote from the AOPA study:

“We consistently see more accidents during takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds in glass panel airplanes,” Kenny said.

[Cruiser]

maybe, .......

I interpret the problem to be poor piloting skills that these pilots have not mastered. In other words, the accident has nothing to do with the glass panel and everything to do with the pilot.