This guy is an embarrassment to Mooney pilots.

[midlifeflyer]

10 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

Not surprised you accomplished it quickly.   But I don't think this sort of thing is really about how fast you can work.  Rather, it's about the confidence to get the job done methodically, even if you're interrupted during the process to correct a small attitude deviation, backspace after a bump of turbulence causes you to hit the wrong key, etc.  It's just not a crisis if it takes a full minute to load a new approach, or re-load the current approach with a different transition.

Absolutely. It's not about the speed; the speed is just an indicator of how easy it is. About the same effort as loading in a new COM or VOR frequency. I suspect we both teach some version of the "3-second rule." Don't move away from scanning the instruments for more than three seconds, even if you have to load a new frequency one digit at a time. 

14 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

  Assigning a new approach or transition when you're 30 seconds away from a no-longer-relevant fix is kind of a jerk move by the controller; but doing so when you're several minutes away is not.  So what if it takes you a couple of minutes to bring up the new plate and re-load the approach?  You've got that time. 

That's what was so scary to me about the RDU crash.  He gets the "expect RNAV runway 32" from ATC on initial contact with Raleigh Approach. That's a long way - both time and distance before it's needed.

17 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

Approach, can I get a vector while I re-program my GPS? 

Absolutely. Delay vectors. Even a hold in the appropriate situation.

The weird thing is how little it's taught given that the artificial rush-rush-rush between closely-spaced approaches in the teaching environment. Seems the perfect situation for it.

[Vance Harral]

28 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

I suspect we both teach some version of the "3-second rule."

Yep, we're clearly brothers-from-another-mother.  I lament that you moved away from Denver before I got a chance to fly with you, maybe we can still do that some day.

29 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

The weird thing is how little it's taught given that the artificial rush-rush-rush between closely-spaced approaches in the teaching environment. Seems the perfect situation for it.

Agreed.  But some of the challenge there - at least for me - is just the nature of IFR training in dense, fair-weather metro areas like Denver.  Curious about your perspective, especially since you used to fly here.

Most of my IFR instructional flights don't involve filing and flying an IFR flight plan, due to efficiency challenges.  Of course you can and should file during training, including XC travel.  But it's rarely required to file IFR around here, due to the lack of flyable IMC; and of course not everyone has 6+ hour chunks available for training (including myself).  So the options are to file and fly locally in CAVU conditions and accept a lot of not-always-useful wide vectoring around a zillion VFR threats; or to stay VFR and request "practice approaches", accepting that doing so largely just makes you another VFR flight following customer in ATC's eyes.  Both of these things change the controller dynamic, and - despite my assertions to the contrary above - can make the controllers assigned to the bugsmasher-laden low-altitude airspace somewhat grumpier.  They know you're just training, that it's not "for real" IFR, and that subtly changes attitudes and expectations.  It's a completely different story in real IMC - those guys will bend over backward for you.  But again, we just don't get much of that.

I don't mean to overplay that challenge.  The vast majority of experiences I've had with Denver TRACON are great, including having students ask for delaying vectors on training flights.  But I try not to abuse the privilege on CAVU days, because again, we're all on the same team.  It's one thing to allow a student to ask for hand-holding on a peaceful winter evening when the frequency is quiet.  Quite another to ask for it during the 9am airline push out of Denver International on a clear-and-a-million day.

[midlifeflyer]

31 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

Agreed.  But some of the challenge there - at least for me - is just the nature of IFR training in dense, fair-weather metro areas like Denver.  Curious about your perspective, especially since you used to fly here.

We're definitely doing some serious thread creep here

The lack of flyable clouds except for 3-6 days during May-June aside,  I thought instrument training in the Denver area was great. The controllers are really terrific and especially since I flew out of APA we always did our VFR practice approaches with ATC. . I never felt we were burdening them. The same was true for me during my instrument training from an airport just outside of the Bradley (BDL) Class C in Connecticut. The proximity of the Charlie and the common use of towered airports meant it was rare to not utilize ATC services. 

Yeah, it's not quite the same an under IFR, but it is a huge step up from CFI playing ATC (usually poorly). Where I am now, we have a combination of factors which lead most of us to practice and train without using ATC at all. If you listen to the Opposing Bases podcast, they repeatedly joke about "Duke Approach" not knowing how to do practice approaches. And asking for vectors to final from the other TRACON which handles my home base approaches from the south ("Viet Nam" in Opposing Bases lingo - we are on one of those TRACON boundaries) is usually an exercise in futility. I once called them for vectors to final and they gave me direct to the IF at whatever altitude I felt like. 

[1980Mooney]

On 8/13/2024 at 3:34 PM, FlyingDude said:

We have a dude that's flying an aircraft with VFR GPS on the panel, iPad to improvise ifr (but without the wisdom to bring a charger), no 30-day vor check, so that plane is completely VFR only,

 

 

 

On 8/14/2024 at 8:02 AM, Ibra said:

The pilot looked more like who was once an experienced IFR pilot but not he is not familiar with panel GPS and likely always relied on iPad to make ATC shortcuts, I know similar pilots who have no clue how to use GPS but know how to use VOR, ADF, ILS…I flew with one pilot who asks heading every time he gets a direct, scraps 2 out of 3 GPS procedures due to fat fingers, does not know the fixes in GPS plates and he can’t fly without iPad…

 

On 8/14/2024 at 10:29 AM, kortopates said:

I agree with you there, buttonology is a huge part of IFR proficiency.
 

 

On 8/13/2024 at 4:06 PM, kortopates said:

Do we know what if anything the FAA did about this.

 

 

Further observation:

• Remember this happened back in 2015 to the then 62 year old pilot
• The FAA was in the process at the time of reducing the number of VORs
• No reg then or even today requires GPS for a plane to be IFR capable.
  • https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-C/section-91.205#p-91.205(b)
• Today pilots assume (and are totally dependent upon) that you MUST have GPS to fly
• As you say flying is becoming more about skill in pushing buttons - "BUTTONOLOGY"
• I bet most GA pilots that think this guy is "an embarrassment" could not today hand fly IFR by VOR and without an autopilot.
• Many of the posts on MS are obsessed about upgrading to more and more capable/integrated panels with more capable autopilots that can fly Visual Approaches (VFR glideslope), Smart Glide, etc
• This was a pilot and plane in transition.
• The pilot/owner seemed like your typical enthusiastic and thrifty new Mooney owner on a budget.
• He bought his Mooney in June 2013 for $41k (his 3rd plane each a step up)
• When he bought the plane it just had two VORs, one with ILS and the ads say it had DME at one point.  It had a Garmin 155 on the yoke.  He "upgraded" to the Garmin 396 in the panel.  Something else is in the upper right hand side of the pane but cant tell and the description is lacking.
• He joined MS in July 2013 and posted a lot on MS discussing his upgrades like his panel.
• He seemed to have a lot of interest in his plane - the ad says he repainted it in 2015
• The incident happened in December 2015
• The last time that he ever visited MooneySpace was July 2016
• He sold the Mooney in mid-2019

I can only suspect that this killed his interest in GA flying.  Between the incident, likely remedial training, the prospect of more spending on more technology that the "thrill was gone".  More and more the future seems mainly to be about the panel and "buttonology" now.  It is no wonder that we read about horrific crashes where the pilot/owner cannot control the plane in IFR when the autopilot fails or kicks off (both GA and commercial).  The plane is just a hulk to haul avionics more and more.  And there was a time in GA when everything, every bill started in $1's K,  Now days the discussions and bills seem to start in $10's K.....

 

[toto]

25 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

He "upgraded" to the Garmin 396 in the panel.  Something else is in the upper right hand side of the pane but cant tell and the description is lacking.

It looks like he had an audio panel in the top of the center stack. He replaced that with the 396 in a dock, and moved the audio panel to the top of the right stack. 

[toto]

35 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

• No reg then or even today requires GPS for a plane to be IFR capable.
  • https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-C/section-91.205#p-91.205(b)
• Today pilots assume (and are totally dependent upon) that you MUST have GPS to fly
• As you say flying is becoming more about skill in pushing buttons - "BUTTONOLOGY"
• I bet most GA pilots that think this guy is "an embarrassment" could not today hand fly IFR by VOR and without an autopilot.

It’s a tough call. I did my instrument training in an aircraft with no autopilot and two KX-170B radios in the panel, and my reptilian brain still wants a VOR when overloaded.

But if you're a new pilot today and you’re planning to fly TAA in the future or as a career, it’s probably best to build those neural pathways with buttonology and a certified GPS navigator. 

[kortopates]

 
 
Further observation:

• Remember this happened back in 2015 to the then 62 year old pilot
• The FAA was in the process at the time of reducing the number of VORs
• No reg then or even today requires GPS for a plane to be IFR capable.
  • '>https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-C/section-91.205#p-91.205(
• Today pilots assume (and are totally dependent upon) that you MUST have GPS to fly
• As you say flying is becoming more about skill in pushing buttons - "BUTTONOLOGY"
• I bet most GA pilots that think this guy is "an embarrassment" could not today hand fly IFR by VOR and without an autopilot.
• Many of the posts on MS are obsessed about upgrading to more and more capable/integrated panels with more capable autopilots that can fly Visual Approaches (VFR glideslope), Smart Glide, etc
• This was a pilot and plane in transition.
• The pilot/owner seemed like your typical enthusiastic and thrifty new Mooney owner on a budget.
• He bought his Mooney in June 2013 for $41k (his 3rd plane each a step up)
• When he bought the plane it just had two VORs, one with ILS and the ads say it had DME at one point.  It had a Garmin 155 on the yoke.  He "upgraded" to the Garmin 396 in the panel.  Something else is in the upper right hand side of the pane but cant tell and the description is lacking.
• He joined MS in July 2013 and posted a lot on MS discussing his upgrades like his panel.
• He seemed to have a lot of interest in his plane - the ad says he repainted it in 2015
• The incident happened in December 2015
• The last time that he ever visited MooneySpace was July 2016
• He sold the Mooney in mid-2019

I can only suspect that this killed his interest in GA flying.  Between the incident, likely remedial training, the prospect of more spending on more technology that the "thrill was gone".  More and more the future seems mainly to be about the panel and "buttonology" now.  It is no wonder that we read about horrific crashes where the pilot/owner cannot control the plane in IFR when the autopilot fails or kicks off (both GA and commercial).  The plane is just a hulk to haul avionics more and more.  And there was a time in GA when everything, every bill started in $1's K,  Now days the discussions and bills seem to start in $10's K.....
 

All true, but i would categorize it differently.

I believe every pilot recognizes the value of GPS and especially the Direct button.

We’ve been relying on them for so many years that many long time IFR pilots would be hard pressed to fall back on VOR navigation; except for those pilots that fly with a professional attitude and work hard to maintain their proficiency. They may never fly approaches to actual minimums but there out there practicing that to keep there skills up.

Then we have another group of usually long time IFR pilots that I’ll categorize as the ones that will be quick to tell you that they don’t fly “hard IFR”. Personally that doesn’t mean much except to them but it seems to universally mean that the IFR currency rules don’t apply to them.

The vast majority of there IFR flying is in VMC conditions, using the autopilot, punching through a thin layer when needed and navigation by following the magenta line - even on an approach since after all you can usually see the airport passing the FAF.

Our anti-authoritarian IFR pilot doesn’t worry about logging the 6 approaches under the hood, they feel fine to as long as they’re continuing to fly on an IFR flight plan and may note they flew some approaches; not necessarily logging hood time.

This reinforces complacency in ignoring the instrument currency requirements that don’t apply to them since they never intend to get into “hard IFR”. then the day comes that the weather is more than they bargained for, or good forbid, they have some form of equipment failure. But more often they just got too far behind the airplane and didn’t ask for help.

Bottom line is GPS navigation is very powerful but also far more complex that VOR’s. Hence all the buttonology skills required while also flying the aircraft. If we’re going rely on them we need to do our homework and learns how to use them. The AIM has a long list of GPS skills under GPS familiarization to tell every instrument pilot that they need to gain proficiency in these skills before flying IFR with one. AIM 1-1-17 (k)
This is just as true today as when GPS was first coming available to us 30 years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Marc_B]

@kortopates  I'd echo that to say that in the era of steam gauges there was MUCH more instrument uniformity from one aircraft to the next.  Modern panels have so many unique quirks that currency is minimum price of entry, but not even remotely in the realm of proficiency.  How modes change, how the approach sequences, where you find the "gotchas" with equipment surprises...I think this is the appeal of teaching "universalisms" like GPS Reeves teaches...he tries to teach "always do this" or "never do that" just to try to minimize the gotchas sometimes instead of teaching the myriad of nuances of how complex the modern glass panel can sometimes be.

I got my instrument rating in my Mooney, have flown it for 3 years and over 500+ hrs, attended a PPP, attended an onsite Garmin course, and like to go out and figure out why it does stuff the way it does...and I'm still surprised sometimes...and this is with an all Garmin panel...once you start mixing and matching a lot of the time the quirks rise exponentially.

The hard part is that you can't simulate every single issue you might run into.  Sometimes it's obvious and easy...sometimes it's a head scratcher and it won't be figured out that flight.  For me, this is where accidents, "There I was" podcasts, and AOPA ASI reviews help fill in the gaps of what goes wrong to help fill the neurons for what would I do?

23 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

• Many of the posts on MS are obsessed about upgrading to more and more capable/integrated panels with more capable autopilots that can fly Visual Approaches (VFR glideslope), Smart Glide, etc

I would argue that more capable and integrated panels with a fully featured autopilot afford a WAY larger safety margin for the GA pilot.  But they come at the cost of more sophistication from the panel requiring more sophistication from the pilot.  But at the end of the day the meat sack in the left seat is still the PIC and not the electrons behind the panel.  So the level of safety afforded is only as good as the pilot.

But the reason we have these issues is that minimum price of entry to the sky is actually rather low.  So safety is dictated by rational, smart, educated, and conservative decisions...and we all know how dumb our decisions can be and how stupid humans are sometime.

 

 

[Marc_B]

22 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

I bet most GA pilots that think this guy is "an embarrassment" could not today hand fly IFR by VOR and without an autopilot.

Maybe the solution is to have the personal minimum that "I'm not going to fly into situations that I wouldn't feel comfortable hand flying."  The only problem is that weather is dynamic and a lot of these situations weren't "intentional" choices.  So the follow up is "I will try to leave myself an out if things change and I don't like the way it is developing."

[midlifeflyer]

5 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

Modern panels have so many unique quirks that currency is minimum price of entry, but not even remotely in the realm of proficiency. 

So much so that it is possible to pass an instrument practical test in a TAA without being proficient with the avionics.

If it were ever really true, the adage that you are most proficient the day of the checkride is definitely a myth today.

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, Marc_B said:

@kortopates  I'd echo that to say that in the era of steam gauges there was MUCH more instrument uniformity from one aircraft to the next.  Modern panels have so many unique quirks that currency is minimum price of entry, but not even remotely in the realm of proficiency.  How modes change, how the approach sequences, where you find the "gotchas" with equipment surprises...I think this is the appeal of teaching "universalisms" like GPS Reeves teaches...he tries to teach "always do this" or "never do that" just to try to minimize the gotchas sometimes instead of teaching the myriad of nuances of how complex the modern glass panel can sometimes be.

I got my instrument rating in my Mooney, have flown it for 3 years and over 500+ hrs, attended a PPP, attended an onsite Garmin course, and like to go out and figure out why it does stuff the way it does...and I'm still surprised sometimes...and this is with an all Garmin panel...once you start mixing and matching a lot of the time the quirks rise exponentially.

The hard part is that you can't simulate every single issue you might run into.  Sometimes it's obvious and easy...sometimes it's a head scratcher and it won't be figured out that flight.  For me, this is where accidents, "There I was" podcasts, and AOPA ASI reviews help fill in the gaps of what goes wrong to help fill the neurons for what would I do?

I would argue that more capable and integrated panels with a fully featured autopilot afford a WAY larger safety margin for the GA pilot.  But they come at the cost of more sophistication from the panel requiring more sophistication from the pilot.  But at the end of the day the meat sack in the left seat is still the PIC and not the electrons behind the panel.  So the level of safety afforded is only as good as the pilot.

But the reason we have these issues is that minimum price of entry to the sky is actually rather low.  So safety is dictated by rational, smart, educated, and conservative decisions...and we all know how dumb our decisions can be and how stupid humans are sometime.

 

"@kortopates  I'd echo that to say that in the era of steam gauges there was MUCH more instrument uniformity from one aircraft to the next.  Modern panels have so many unique quirks that currency is minimum price of entry, but not even remotely in the realm of proficiency.  How modes change, how the approach sequences, where you find the "gotchas" with equipment surprises....and I'm still surprised sometimes...and this is with an all Garmin panel...once you start mixing and matching a lot of the time the quirks rise exponentially."

• This is more of a problem with our 20-60 year old planes that become more and more bespoke with each modification. Newer planes like Cirrus have more uniformity.

"The hard part is that you can't simulate every single issue you might run into.  Sometimes it's obvious and easy...sometimes it's a head scratcher and it won't be figured out that flight.  

I would argue that more capable and integrated panels with a fully featured autopilot afford a WAY larger safety margin for the GA pilot.  But they come at the cost of more sophistication from the panel requiring more sophistication from the pilot.  ....  So the level of safety afforded is only as good as the pilot."

• It offers way more safety margin until it stops working or the pilot cannot understand it.
• It allows (lulls), pilots that are actually "less sophisticated" into believing that they are more sophisticated sometimes with disastrous results.
  • TNFLyGirl - preliminary indicates she had problems operating Century 2000 autopilot (she even posted YouTube of her struggling with it)
    • https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/348680
    • https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/ntsb-report-contains-key-information-on-high-profile-accident/
  • https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/181528
  • The latest Pilatus crash - pilot told ATC of autopilot problem 

 

[Marc_B]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

It allows (lulls), pilots that are actually "less sophisticated" into believing that they are more sophisticated

My personal opinion is that is a characteristic of the pilot, and not inherent or a characteristic of the machine.

I'm sure there are pilots that don't understand vacuum system failures and won't be able to recognize their AI failed and how to crosscheck.  But in my mind, I expect from myself more than a rudimentary knowledge of the equipment.  The comment above could be said about any aspect of the aircraft...retractable gear vs fixed, constant speed prop, etc.

Like I mentioned, the minimum price of entry to the air is actually quite low and the standard training aircraft are designed to be the most easy to fly.  But you're right...basic experience and education gives you basic skill at best.  You have to continue to work at it to improve.

[1980Mooney]

14 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

My personal opinion is that is a characteristic of the pilot, and not inherent or a characteristic of the machine.

I'm sure there are pilots that don't understand vacuum system failures and won't be able to recognize their AI failed and how to crosscheck.  But in my mind, you should have more than a rudimentary knowledge of your equipment.  The comment above could be said about any aspect of the aircraft...retractable gear vs fixed, constant speed prop, etc.

Like I mentioned, the minimum price of entry to the air is actually quite low and the standard training aircraft are designed to be the most easy to fly.  But you're right...basic experience and education gives you basic skill at best.  You have to continue to work at it to improve.

Of course the genesis is the characteristic of the pilot. But it is so, so much easier to just dial in and "follow a magenta line".(actually let "George" follow the magenta line)  Its like playing a compute game.  If you are dependent upon dialing in and finding the intersection of two VORs or finding the offset of a DME while hand flying you know much more quickly when you are not up to the task and that you will not be able to hand fly the plane if the "magenta line fails".

[Vance Harral]

5 hours ago, Marc_B said:

I would argue that more capable and integrated panels with a fully featured autopilot afford a WAY larger safety margin for the GA pilot. 

OK, I'll play.  Give us your argument.

Many people want to believe your assertion is true, and tell themselves so as they shell out tons of dollars on "capability" (but disturbingly little on "training").  But overall GA IMC accident data just doesn't show a meaningful decline, despite the fact that on average the GA fleet grows more sophisticated every year.

Here's one article with data: https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/vfr-into-imc/ntsb.  Yes, I know that if you draw a linear average, those graphs show a slight reduction in the accident rates over time.  But viewed holistically, the rate is just bouncing around, same as it has done for decades.  Indeed, two of the absolute worst years in the last couple of decades were 2017 and 2019, long after the introduction of the latest round of navigators and autopilots, and just before the Covid-induced proficiency lapses.  So there just isn't any evidence of a great revolution in safety as all these gizmos get put in panels.

Bottom line: equippage is just equippage.  It's not capability or safety by itself.  As others have noted, the more capability we have, the more practice and training is required to truly benefit from that capability, and most of us just don't get all the bases covered.  I'm not so arrogant as to think I'm special in this respect.  Proficiency with buttonology in the multitude of airplanes I'm asked to give instruction in is one of my biggest concerns.  Presently, I'm expected to be proficient with all of GNS, GTN (Xi and non-Xi), and Avidyne navigators; vacuum gyros, G5s, GI-275s, G500 Txi, and G3x Touch.  I won't actually take an Avidyne or GI-275 equipped airplane into IMC, but that's not because those aren't highly capable devices, it's just because I just don't get enough time with them to be instrument proficient.  If someone asks me for instrument instruction in a Dynon-equipped airplane, ethics will demand I decline.  Which is a bummer, because those are cool toys.  But as Harry Callahan said, a man's got to know his limitations.

[kortopates]

2 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

OK, I'll play.  Give us your argument.

Many people want to believe your assertion is true, and tell themselves so as they shell out tons of dollars on "capability" (but disturbingly little on "training").  But overall GA IMC accident data just doesn't show a meaningful decline, despite the fact that on average the GA fleet grows more sophisticated every year.

Here's one article with data: https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/vfr-into-imc/ntsb.  Yes, I know that if you draw a linear average, those graphs show a slight reduction in the accident rates over time.  But viewed holistically, the rate is just bouncing around, same as it has done for decades.  Indeed, two of the absolute worst years in the last couple of decades were 2017 and 2019, long after the introduction of the latest round of navigators and autopilots, and just before the Covid-induced proficiency lapses.  So there just isn't any evidence of a great revolution in safety as all these gizmos get put in panels.

Bottom line: equippage is just equippage.  It's not capability or safety by itself.  As others have noted, the more capability we have, the more practice and training is required to truly benefit from that capability, and most of us just don't get all the bases covered.  I'm not so arrogant as to think I'm special in this respect.  Proficiency with buttonology in the multitude of airplanes I'm asked to give instruction in is one of my biggest concerns.  Presently, I'm expected to be proficient with all of GNS, GTN (Xi and non-Xi), and Avidyne navigators; vacuum gyros, G5s, GI-275s, G500 Txi, and G3x Touch.  I won't actually take an Avidyne or GI-275 equipped airplane into IMC, but that's not because those aren't highly capable devices, it's just because I just don't get enough time with them to be instrument proficient.  If someone asks me for instrument instruction in a Dynon-equipped airplane, ethics will demand I decline.  Which is a bummer, because those are cool toys.  But as Harry Callahan said, a man's got to know his limitations.

I think we all know that the improvements in technology have vastly improved our situational awareness when we're flying, such as weather and traffic information and the modern displays provide that information. Plus I think we all believe this can directly help improve our safety - when we know how to use it, leverage the content and exercise appropriate ADM. But its not necessarily going to directly reduce the accident statistics for a lot of reasons. In fact when you get into the details of trying to study that question its a very complicated one to address as the available data isn't as detailed as we'd like. 

Then we also have real technology on the airframe that can also adds to safety, such as the new digital autopilots that provide envelope protection and of course the cirrus chute (although not applicable to us Mooney pilots) - all adding safety even though we may not be able to prove it with the accident statistics.

But we also have to face that these improvements more than likely have led to taking bigger risk in flying. Such as flying in worse weather on longer cross countries because we have the added knowledge of near real time weather in the cockpit as well as greater confidence in the equipment automation capabilities to help make up for proficiency deficiencies if we underestimate the threats  - including the parachute.

Bottom line is that we're not yet near an evolutionary improvement in the technology that is going to make up for a pilots poor ADM and lack of proficiency when things don't go as expected - there is no way yet for technology to bypass the failure rate of the equipment between the pilot ears. That's more of a education and training discussion. Pilots continue to spend far more on their panel and equipment than on training and education.

Edited August 18 by kortopates

[Vance Harral]

15 hours ago, kortopates said:

But its not necessarily going to directly reduce the accident statistics

Well, then, what's the point of it?

Yes, statistics are complicated, and I also understand the theory of risk homeostasis.  I'm not a Luddite, and I've enjoyed every technology advance in aviation during my flying avocation/career, largely because they sit at the intersection of my airplane addiction and my nerdy electronics bent.  I just haven't seen compelling evidence that we're particularly safer for it.

Maybe we are indeed more capable.  It's possible a lot more IFR missions are being completed in single engine pistons that used to be, and that's a good enough reason to like the new hotness.

15 hours ago, kortopates said:

Pilots continue to spend far more on their panel and equipment than on training and education.

This is the crux of my point.  There are some pilots who I'd trust in IMC equipped with nothing more than vacuum gyros and two NAV/COMs, because they frequently practice for the relatively straightforward failure modes of that equipment.  There are others I wouldn't trust with two WAAS GPSes and four sources of attitude information (not an uncommon configuration these days), because they've never trained for anything other than nominal, simple scenarios.  The irony is that folks in the latter category aren't necessarily training fewer hours than the former, there's just so much more to cover.

Occasionally the latter group will deride the former for being "too cheap for aviation", though that's kind of a bogeyman argument that's actually pretty rare.  What I find more common is clients who are very excited about the safety aspects of their recent $25/50/75K panel upgrade, but who demonstrate to me in a flight review that they don't know how to use it in anything other than a small number of scenarios.  That's not a recipe for safety, but a lot of them truly believe they've "put their money where their mouth is", with respect to being safe.

[Fly Boomer]

28 minutes ago, kortopates said:

But its not necessarily going to directly reduce the accident statistics for a lot of reasons.

If I live long enough, I anticipate a time when robots and artificial intelligence will compensate for all our shortcomings, and solve all our problems.  I just hope my robot doesn't weigh too much--I'm already useful load challenged.

[201er]

 

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

Then we also have real technology on the airframe that can also adds to safety, such as the new digital autopilots that provide envelope protection and of course the cirrus chute (although not applicable to us Mooney pilots) - all adding safety even though we may not be able to prove it with the accident statistics.

But we also have to face that these improvements more than likely have led to taking bigger risk in flying. Such as flying in worse weather on longer cross countries because we have the added knowledge of near real time weather in the cockpit as well as greater confidence in the equipment automation capabilities to help make up for proficiency deficiencies if we underestimate the threats  - including the parachute.

It seems that pilots have a certain risk tolerance irrespective of their equipment. Add a panel, parachute, fiki, turbine, 2nd engine, the stats don’t get particularly better while the capability does. Even instrument rating isn’t a save all. About half the VFR into IMC accident rate is instrument rated pilots!

As soon as a pilot reduces risk with new safety capability, he tends to immediately take on more risk by utilizing the capability.

Let’s be honest, who gets an instrument rating to fly exclusively VFR but more safely? A 2nd engine, to fly only over safe terrain? FIKI to avoid flying in icing? Or a parachute to actually learn to fly the plane?

Equipment is expensive so it is bought to expand capability. Let’s face it, we could greatly reduce risk for free just by not doing certain things, flying more within our capabilities, getting more training and practice.

[Paul Thomas]

In some ways, it was easier to fly V airways and shoot ground based approaches. GPS, especially when combined with GPSS, is a treat but I'm more anxious about it in the terminal area. The last thing I ever want is to wonder if the box is going to sequence as I expect it to. It's just so much easier to make a mistake, and it takes longer to correct than with ground based nav. GPS greatly reduces workload and is more precise so I train and regularly use mine.

[Marc_B]

17 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

OK, I'll play.  Give us your argument.

Modern glass panel allows increased situational awareness for navigation as well as on screen traffic and terrain.  Most have ADS-b weather and some have XM weather.  Most have easy access to the comprehensive list of diversion fields with weather, frequencies, runway lengths and currently favored runways, as well as the full database of what IFR procedures exist.  Loading a different approach is very easy whether that's due to downgraded approach, NOTAM out of service, equipment issue, or a simple change in winds resulting in a change in airport flow.  Glass panels have a clear graphic display of TFRs, airspace boundaries, and changeovers for ATC/Center freqs.  Many glass panels allow you to set up altitude constraints at distances to a fix so that if VFR you can pre-plan altitude descents to make sure you don't accidentally bust airspace boundaries.  They can use inflight data to help calculate fuel burn and reserves, calculate ETAs, instantly show all your position report data.  Full screen panels can show your entire route to quickly see if you had a fix misspelled and it jumps off course unexpectedly later in your route.

Regarding weather, I wouldn't use XM or ADS-B weather to navigate storm cells, but on a 3-5 hr flight, how accurate was that weather brief you got a hour before departure?  If you were checking wx enroute and saw a change, perhaps you might have just stopped for fuel and a pitstop short of the destination.  Or maybe your planned approach/runway from your brief changed en route and you can anticipate what your plan is on arrival...and perhaps do a better job of briefing the missed and already having plan B solidified in your mind.

Regarding a modern autopilot, single pilot IFR can be a large workload but with a properly functioning AP it allows the pilot to monitor the big picture and not just focus on vertical and horizontal flight.  Incidental VFR into IMC or an episode of spatial disorientation, just press the blue LVL button and let the AP help you regain control.  AP allows you to fly more precisely and sometimes more smoothly than you'd typically hand fly (of course some times, i.e. turbulence, I'd rather hand fly).  With a GPS and coupled AP it opens the complete list of fixes within the FAA database and even allows you to create user fixes on radials, DME/radial, and radial/radial pretty quickly and easily.  You can easily set up a course around MOAs, TFRs, or airspaces you'd like to avoid.  The addition of smart glide gives you assistance at a critical phase of an emergency so that hopefully you minimize altitude loss and distance to your closest field, and maximize the time and glide distance you have to fly the aircraft and work the problem.  It also allows you to easily squawk emergency, tune 121.5, and gives you info about the closest airport to you.

Regarding failure rates...Rate of vacuum failure much higher than glass panel failure.  A failing vacuum system much harder to quickly and clearly identify rather than a red X.  Glass panels have more integrated alerting for a variety of things from stabilized approach alerts, terrain alerts, sink rate alerts, traffic alerts, etc.

Accidents happen and lots of them happen due to the pilot.  No equipment, no matter how safe, is going to protect the pilot from themself.  But to deny the added ability and safety margin just because someone might not take the time to learn the equipment doesn't make sense to me.  But you are right to say that equipment alone doesn't = safety by itself.

Shortly after I purchased 8MA, I was flying VFR (didn't have IR yet) into KDAL (Dallas Love), had filed a flight plan, spoken with FBO at DAL, and had flight following.  Thirty nm north of destination, ATC tells me "Dallas Love isn't accepting VFR traffic, say intentions."  I quickly pulled up my map screen, had previously considered KADS (Addison), so told ATC "I'll divert to Addison if that works."  Within minutes I had new destination plugged in, frequencies set, had the wx & NOTAMs, and already knew what runway I'd be using.  For a relatively new Mooney pilot flying into a busy airspace it was really seamless and allowed me to focus on flying the aircraft and not digging though charts or having to memorize all the areas in my preflight.  It was not just safer for me, but all the traffic in the area as well as being smooth and efficient with ATC and avoiding having to circle in a busy airspace while I came up with a plan B if I didn't already have one or needed to go to plan C.

[201er]

57 minutes ago, Aviationist said:

You are making a lot of in accurate blanket statements. 
 

are you saying current technology makes pilots less safe?

 

If you are, that’s insane. 

Which of these accidents would have been prevented if only the pilot had the latest technology?

https://mooneyspace.com/forum/35-mooney-safety-accident-discussion/

[hubcap]

I traded a bunch of Benjamin’s for a technologically advanced avionics package. That doesn’t make me a better pilot, it gives me a lower single pilot workload. I have weather and traffic in the cockpit. Good stuff. It doesn’t replace good aeronautical decision making. Just having more tools in the tool box doesn’t make you a better mechanic, unless you know how to use them. 
 

I learned to fly using VORs. The FAA is decommissioning VORs, and admittedly I don’t spend much time training to use them other than an occasional VOR approach into my local airport. We all know there are risks involved in everything we do. Am I putting myself at risk by not being the best VOR knob twister and needle chaser? Perhaps, but that lack of proficiency should be accounted for in my aeronautical decision making. 
 

I like the technology and the magenta line. It reduces the workload and if I do my part, I believe the technology provides a greater margin of safety, if used properly.

[Vance Harral]

1 hour ago, Aviationist said:

the argument was that modern technology is making pilots worse

If you're referring to my posts, I'm not arguing that modern technology is making pilots worse, only that it's not moving the needle one way or the other when you look at the data.  The VFR-into-IMC accident rate isn't moving.  Neither is the midair collision rate.

I appreciate that @Marc_B took the time to type out a lot of details about the information and capability modern equipment provides.  But he doesn't give evidence that the accident rate is getting better, he only gives theories about how those technologies could theoretically prevent accidents.  It's a sales job, not evidence.

To cherry-pick a few things from his post:

9 hours ago, Marc_B said:

Loading a different approach is very easy

... then why didn't the pilot who is the subject of this thread just do that?  Instead, he said, "I'm having trouble controlling the plane and doing stuff at the same time", and that his "main GPS" (assuming it was the panel mount unit) "was totally wrong"  I know it's de rigueur to just say he was an idiot, but the reality seems to be that it's not as easy as you posit, across the pilot population as a whole.  That statement doesn't apply to Marc as an individual, of course, but he's just one data point.

9 hours ago, Marc_B said:

Glass panels have a clear graphic display of TFRs

... provided you (1) haven't accidentally (or deliberately) turned them off with a declutter operation; and (2) fully understand how the technology that transmits the data can fail to complete transmissions.  Mooneyspace pilots are surely a cut above average, and absolutely no one here is more qualified on their cockpit technology than @PT20J, so why was this an issue:  https://mooneyspace.com/topic/43573-missing-ads-b-tfrs/

Whatever the case, pilots are still flying into TFRs on a regular basis, even as the fleet is better and better equipped to depict where they are and warn you when you're approaching them.  The incursion rate today isn't any better than it was 20 years ago.

9 hours ago, Marc_B said:

Incidental VFR into IMC or an episode of spatial disorientation, just press the blue LVL button and let the AP help you regain control.

It's great technology, but the question is why some pilots are unable to use that button, in the "heat of battle", so to speak.  I incorporate the LVL button into flight training, in aircraft so-equipped.  In the last couple of flight reviews I gave in thusly-equipped airplanes, the pilots couldn't really tell me when/how they expected to use the button, just that it was there "in case they needed it".  So I put them in unusual attitudes, and they performed the FAA-standard recovery by hand (poorly).  When I asked them, "Why didn't you just press the LVL button on the autopilot?", they basically said it didn't occur to them.  If you think they'd behave more rationally in the fear and stress of an actual disorientation event, you're dreaming.

To beat a dead horse... Equipment is just equipment.  It's not safety by itself.  To convince me that a technology actually improves safety, or reduces legal violations, or whatever... you have to show data.  Yes, the accident data is sometimes difficult to find and/or interpret.  But between not seeing any meaningful change in the accidents and violations covered in my Flight Instructor Refresher Courses, and my actual experience teaching as a flight instructor, I'm confident the last 20 years of technology isn't delivering on the promises its advocates make for it.

That doesn't make the technology itself bad.  It may indeed deliver on promises in the future, as education and training behavior changes.  But we're not there yet.  And it's specifically true that lots of pilots dumping AMUs on "safety" in their avionics upgrades are actually achieving nothing of the sort.  Perhaps, like we say, "Pitch plus power equals performance", we should all start saying, "Equipment plus training equals safety".  As I mentioned above, the irony of this is that you need more hours of training to actually improve your odds with modern technology.

Finally, a punch line... the last person I gave the LVL test to quit flying with me after that flight, which also included an instrument approach that he never actually loaded into the navigator.  I firmly but politely told him not to use the privileges of his instrument rating until he got additional training.  He didn't like that, and also insinuated he didn't think I was worth the $65/hour I was charging him, to train with the $50K panel he'd just put in his PA-28.  A few days later, he departed Colorado after dark, and flew through the night all the way to Arizona, over pitch black mountainous terrain, undoubtedly confident in the safety of his high-end panel.  It turned out OK for him - that time - but my signature is in his logbook a couple of times, and I can't take it back.  Maybe that story helps all of you understand why I'm so wound up about this stuff.

[Marc_B]

I hear what you're saying Vance.  But poor pilot skills, lack of education, hazardous attitudes, and poor ADM has nothing to do with equipment and everything to do with the person.  And this is why the accident rate remains unchanged despite technological advances.

Over 2/3 of accidents are "attributed to" pilot-related. (link is attached).  edit: see below posts doesn't include "unknown" that were likely pilot-related as well.

But maybe what you're trying to point out is that capability and safety are not synonymous.  Completely agree. 

[Vance Harral]

3 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

But poor pilot skills, lack of education, hazardous attitudes, and poor ADM has nothing to do with equipment and everything to do with the person.

Yes on the last two, no on the first two.  Modern equipment requires more skill and more education to be proficient than older equipment, and that's a new challenge that has everything to do with the equipment, and almost nothing to do with the person.

Many folks understand this, and plan for the additional training and practice required to reap the benefit.  But many do not, and are surprised to find out (or be told) they are actually worse off with new tech than without it, despite having entirely reasonable attitudes about training and proficiency.  Not all of them respond to that cognitive dissonance the way we wish they would.

I suspect we're not very far apart in our opinions about modern avionics.  With sufficient practice and training, they can definitely enhance safety for a particular pilot.  But there simply isn't any evidence they're making flying safer for the GA population as a whole.  Anecdotally, I don't see it when I give flight instruction to dozens of clients.  Statistically, it's just not there in the accident/violation data.  When I rant about this stuff, I'm really trying to figure out how we change that.  All I know for sure is that just having the gizmos in the panel isn't enough by itself, even though most of my clients have pretty good attitudes.  Something is missing.