This guy is an embarrassment to Mooney pilots.

[1980Mooney]

35 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

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 pilot-related.

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

Actually you are understating the share of pilot-related accidents.

Only 7.2% of accidents were attributed to mechanical issues that could be found.  The cause of 28% of the accidents was designated as "Unknown" - but most likely pilot-related.

[Marc_B]

13 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

When I rant about this stuff, I'm really trying to figure out how we change that.

What I think would decrease accident rates:  High fidelity simulation, more routine and structured training, and better testing/assessment of skill and deficiencies.

For 121 ops this is a given.  For GA pilots it's not mandated, easy, or inexpensive....and it's almost 100% self (pilot) driven.

 

[1980Mooney]

On 8/18/2024 at 1:37 PM, 1980Mooney 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....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 

 

 

23 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

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".

 

22 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

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.  

 

53 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

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.

 

 

1 hour ago, Aviationist said:

I was referencing “1980”’s general position and posts against modern technology. 
 

displays, live traffic, weather information, collision alerts, obstacle and terrain alerts, provided by modern equipment greatly enhance safety. 
 

in an argument of old steam gushes vs modern displays, modern displays are a no brainer. 

I simply pointed out that modern displays/technology are not a panacea - it is not all "pros" with no "cons".  Here and on other aviation sites, much of the talk is about spending up to 50% of the current value of the plane on new avionics which may not provide any additional data that you don't already get with ForeFlight on a iPad with a Stratus ". live traffic, weather information, collision alerts, obstacle and terrain alerts," - it is already there.  Yes it is packaged, presented and integrated better - yes it looks really cool. And yes it might give you a VFR Glideslope for your autopilot.  

And if it is such a silver bullet solution, then why does it sometimes confuse and trip up so called "Pro Pilots".

https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/275487

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/july/pilot/what-went-wrong-obsession-with-a-waypoint

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2023/01/pilatus-pc-1247e-n79nx-fatal-accident.html

 

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2024 by 1980Mooney

[Marc_B]

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/is-glass-safer/

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1001.pdf

"Advanced avionics and electronic displays can increase the safety potential of general aviation aircraft operations by providing pilots with more operational and safety-related information and functionality, but more effort is needed to ensure that pilots are prepared to realize that potential."  NTSB

But the discussion is more nuanced than the broad brush strokes being painted of advanced equipment is unsafe.  Consider that the majority of GA pilots today learned to fly with conventional equipment, the FAA knowledge exams are steeped in round dials and have limited testing pertaining to glass panels, the lion share of training aircraft are round dials, and the vast majority of AATD/BATDs are based on round dials.  Familarity and uniformity go a long way.

Once we actually start comparing apples to apples and review how pilots are trained and tested, then we can actually have better data to compare the variations of equipment.

The silver bullet to safety is pilot training and proficiency with whatever equipment you're using.

 

[Pinecone]

On 8/19/2024 at 2:27 PM, 1980Mooney said:

Actually you are understating the share of pilot-related accidents.

Only 7.2% of accidents were attributed to mechanical issues that could be found.  The cause of 28% of the accidents was designated as "Unknown" - but most likely pilot-related.

Over in safety, the numbers are around 10 - 15% from failure of equipment.  80 - 85% are unsafe acts of people.  And about 1 - 1.5% from acts of God (unavoidable)

[M20F]

On 8/19/2024 at 2:14 PM, Vance Harral said:

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.

I learned on a ADF, manual changing chains on a Loran, etc.  I can hit a few keys on my 650 and it will load SID, enroute, and STAR.  Click on the autopilot and it is movie time on the iPad.  
 
Modern technology is super easy when it works.  When it doesn’t that is where you need more skill and education to be proficient.  

[Vance Harral]

4 hours ago, M20F said:

Modern technology is super easy when it works.

This statement oversimplifies the challenge. What if the technology is operating exactly as designed, but not the way the pilot expects?  Is that “working” or not?  Modern technology is a lot more capable, but also a lot more likely to be in this “What’s it doing now?” state. 

[Marc_B]

The more I think about this, it's like most things in life.  You'll never know 100% about everything and sometimes the best game plan isn't knowing how to work everything perfectly, but rather having a plan B when things change or don't go as expected.  Even with a steam gauge panel, we've moved past the era without a GPS.  To successfully train the future we need to embrace that and realize it comes with pros and cons.  So it's up to the pilot and their instructors to maximize the pros and minimize the cons.  But I feel rather strongly that trying to train pilots that they have to be 100% and know everything increases the chance that they don't acknowledge an error, get task saturated on things that may not be a priority, or don't feel free to confess when they need help.

Proficiency is only achieved with continued, deliberate work and regular practice.

Learn what to do with VFR flight into IMC.

Ask for a vector while you set up your equipment.

Ask for a delay vector if you need more time on an approach.

Ask for a heading to VFR weather.

Admit that you don't have proper fuel reserves and make a pit stop.

Pay attention to weather changes and decide to make a stop.

Know that "unable" is a valid response when the circumstance warrants it.

I don't think that any of us will ever know all our equipment completely...even the best instructors or professional pilots.  But maybe the best instruction is how to adapt and how to quickly recognize the emergency in front of you.  This is after all why we have checklists and POH/AFMS with emergency procedures.  This is also why as my buddy reminded me, "it's important to learn from others mistakes, because you can't live long enough to make them all yourself." (Eleanor Roosevelt)

[M20F]

9 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

What if the technology is operating exactly as designed, but not the way the pilot expects?  Is that “working” or not?  Modern technology is a lot more capable, but also a lot more likely to be in this “What’s it doing now?” state. 

Between ForeFlight and a GPS short of somebody hacking the signal and sending bad data pretty easy to figure out what is going on.  I mean I get an overlay on an approach, I could literally fly an approach with just ForeFlight no problem.  
 
I can teach anyone in about 10 mins how to follow a pink line and they could navigate across the United States.  If the pink line suddenly went away, well I am not convinced all pilots today could navigate to the nearest airport (skills and education).  

[Hank]

49 minutes ago, M20F said:

Between ForeFlight and a GPS short of somebody hacking the signal and sending bad data pretty easy to figure out what is going on.  I mean I get an overlay on an approach, I could literally fly an approach with just ForeFlight no problem.  

So your panel-mounted GPS reboots itself, or the VOR head flatlines itself during the approach. I can see flying the approach pattern of your GPS approach using your tablet, but where do you get the vertical component? Does your tablet indicate the glideslope? Mine doesn't. 

[Vance Harral]

There's more to navigation than following a straight line between present position and destination.  Terrain and airspace avoidance are two complexities that come to mind, even under VFR.  Old tech was a paper map that was challenging to use because it had to depict everything statically and use subtle visual techniques such as "vignette"; and VOR nav that required tuning frequencies and understanding a CDI.  Foreflight tech is a dynamic moving map in which terrain and airspace are layers that can be enabled (or not if you don't know it's a layer feature), or disabled (including accidentally); and proximity alerts that may or may not be enabled on the screen and/or through your headset.  Both technologies require setup, and the SA to know you're near terrain/airspace of concern in the first place so you know to pay a little extra attention to the nav.  Based on having taught students with both technologies, proper terrain and airspace navigation feels like six of one, half dozen of another to me.

1 hour ago, M20F said:

If the pink line suddenly went away, well I am not convinced all pilots today could navigate to the nearest airport (skills and education).

Right.  And the pink line on Foreflight can suddenly go away with something as simple as an errant tap, it doesn't require equipment failure or GPS hacking.  More importantly, if you're part of the new tech crowd that deliberately turns off the sectional overlay in Foreflight because the dynamic Aeronautical map is better, it's as easy to accidentally turn off airspace and terrain layers as it is to follow the pink line, and then you have absolutely no airspace or terrain data at all.

To be clear, I absolutely agree that navigation is much easier in the modern era when everything is working.  I'm just emphasizing that "working" isn't only about equipment failures, it's also about setting up the equipment.  And equipment setup is more complex in the modern era than it was in the past.  Accordingly, I'm not too surprised we don't do much better now than we did back in the day.  We unquestionably have better capability, but for whatever reasons, it's just not translating to better performance.

[M20F]

44 minutes ago, Hank said:

So your panel-mounted GPS reboots itself, or the VOR head flatlines itself during the approach. I can see flying the approach pattern of your GPS approach using your tablet, but where do you get the vertical component? Does your tablet indicate the glideslope? Mine doesn't. 

91.3(b).  I sure feel a lot better making it happen with an iPad versus a VOR on a handheld we used in Morgan WV in 1997.  

[M20F]

3 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

There's more to navigation than following a straight line between present position and destination.  Terrain and airspace avoidance are two complexities that come to mind, even under VFR.  Old tech was a paper map that was challenging to use because it had to depict everything statically and use subtle visual techniques such as "vignette"; and VOR nav that required tuning frequencies and understanding a CDI.  Foreflight tech is a dynamic moving map in which terrain and airspace are layers that can be enabled (or not if you don't know it's a layer feature), or disabled (including accidentally); and proximity alerts that may or may not be enabled on the screen and/or through your headset.  Both technologies require setup, and the SA to know you're near terrain/airspace of concern in the first place so you know to pay a little extra attention to the nav.  Based on having taught students with both technologies, proper terrain and airspace navigation feels like six of one, half dozen of another to me.

Right.  And the pink line on Foreflight can suddenly go away with something as simple as an errant tap, it doesn't require equipment failure or GPS hacking.  More importantly, if you're part of the new tech crowd that deliberately turns off the sectional overlay in Foreflight because the dynamic Aeronautical map is better, it's as easy to accidentally turn off airspace and terrain layers as it is to follow the pink line, and then you have absolutely no airspace or terrain data at all.

To be clear, I absolutely agree that navigation is much easier in the modern era when everything is working.  I'm just emphasizing that "working" isn't only about equipment failures, it's also about setting up the equipment.  And equipment setup is more complex in the modern era than it was in the past.  Accordingly, I'm not too surprised we don't do much better now than we did back in the day.  We unquestionably have better capability, but for whatever reasons, it's just not translating to better performance.

We will just agree to disagree.   Technology has made flying 1000x’s easier than when I started in 1988.  My GTN650 is easier to use than my first VCR.  I am just not buying it is harder today because “technology” and boomers are dumb.  
 
Fly safe!

[Vance Harral]

3 minutes ago, M20F said:

We will just agree to disagree.

Sure, different opinions make the world go round.

But what you should be asking yourself is why, collectively, pilots are dying and getting into legal trouble at roughly the same rate as in the past.  That's what the accident data says.  I get that everyone feels better with new tech, but that's not really the goal, is it?

[MikeOH]

My $0.02 opinion is that there are TWO issues here, uncorrelated with each other despite popular opinion.

1) Technology 'issues' related to 'new'/'next' generation avionics

2) The reasons accident rates/reasons haven't changed all that much

For the first there is no doubt that a working GPS makes situational awareness stone-simple.  But there is no way you are going to convince me it's easier to use than VOR/CDI.  Sure, that took a bit of education and training but it was universal across aircraft platforms; once you grokked it you had mastery.  Now, there are countless variations in operation of various brands and their interaction with a multitude of installation integrations.  You have nested sub-menus, cursor activation, schemes for scrolling, ad infinitum, ad nauseam...absolutely it is harder to learn, let alone master.  As evidence look at the number of CFIs that 'specialize' in training on various boxes. I dare anyone to prove they know all the selections in all the sub-menus on all the pages of even the lowly GNS430 by heart such they can instantly find any one of them without fumbling!  Let alone all the configuration settings.

It is no mystery to me for issue two: accidents/incidents haven't improved because the root causes are basic airmanship not technology driven.  Bad weather decisions, poor fuel planning and denial (ignoring hand calcs, or your fancy GPS integrated fuel totalizer), RLOC, gear-ups, VMC into IMC, lapses in and bad judgement.  Technology may make information more easily accessible but it doesn't shift the needle when it is routinely ignored.  Bottom line, IMHO, technology my appear to provide more safety but in practical reality it does not.  If it did, we would see a demonstrable improvement in accidents.

[Marc_B]

22 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Bottom line, IMHO, technology my appear to provide more safety but in practical reality it does not.  If it did, we would see a demonstrable improvement in accidents.

I think this is because the safety improvement with the technology we are discussing are dependent on the pilot. Vs seatbelt and airbags in car that don’t have anything to do with how poor the driver is. 
So you won’t see improvements until you actually improve the pilot…which is the leading cause accidents in the first place. 
But the big question discussed above is if that technology encourages LESS training and airmanship, which would result in MORE accidents.

Smart glide and auto land are steps towards an “airbag” type safety feature.  (EDIT: I'd put Electronic Stability and Protection (ESP) and the blue LVL button in similar category)

But I think most of the technology features today increase CAPABILITY more than safety. Two entirely different feature sets, but easy to confuse the two. 

[Pinecone]

16 hours ago, Marc_B said:

Smart glide and auto land are steps towards an “airbag” type safety feature.

And CAPS.

There was a column in AutoWeek many years ago that stated the author believed that the downfall in driving skills came from disk brakes and then ABS.  When you had drum brakes, you had to have a good following distance, as they were not that great.  And in the rain, you gave even more space as wet drum brakes are really bad.  Then came disk brakes and power disk brakes and people just started following closer and closer..  And interestingly, the rate of end collisions DID NOT CHANGE.

Was at an AOPA safety seminar a few months ago.  They showed a graph that showed s sharp decline in GA mishaps.  They did not know why.  Strangely enough, the decline started with the requirement for the BFR came into being. 

[Hank]

8 hours ago, Pinecone said:

There was a column in AutoWeek many years ago that stated the author believed that the downfall in driving skills came from disk brakes and then ABS.  When you had drum brakes, you had to have a good following distance, as they were not that great.  And in the rain, you gave even more space as wet drum brakes are really bad.  Then came disk brakes and power disk brakes and people just started following closer and closer..  And interestingly, the rate of end collisions DID NOT CHANGE.

This is due to Risk Homeostasis, and is why auto insurers quit giving discounts for ABS brakes.