VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > Safety
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-12-2010, 02:57 PM
MSFT-1's Avatar
MSFT-1 MSFT-1 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 276
Default Here's my 0.02

I have about a thousand hours PIC almost evenly spread between my RV-8 (steam gauges) and my RV-10 (dual EFIS).

Both have a capable autopilot from TruTrak. Both have a GNS-430W.

I find my situational awareness is much higher in the RV-10. It is so much easier to scan air speed / altitude / attitude / direction / vertical speed / engine performance on the EFIS than it was on my steam gauges. I also especially like the moving map during the approach because I can easily anticipate what the controller is about to do because I can easily see where I am relative to the airport and approach course.

The autopilot on the RV-10 also flies coupled approaches that the one on the RV-8 doesn't. This is powerful stuff.

I would never go back to steam gauges now.

Having said that, I think one thing that perhaps affects the statistics is that pilots with advanced systems (EFIS/XM Weather/TAWS) probably push the envelope more than guys flying behind round gauges (perhaps unwisely).

It mostly comes back to decisionmaking. No amount of high tech wizardry will bail you out of a weather emergency / ice emergency / etc.

So here is one vote for continuing to create new technology to enhance our flying safety.
__________________
Bruce
Richmond, VA (KFCI)
RV-10 (520+ hours since first flight in Nov 07)
RV-8 (500 hours, sold Sept 07)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-12-2010, 03:40 PM
Flyfalcons's Avatar
Flyfalcons Flyfalcons is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Bonney Lake, WA
Posts: 295
Default

I'm all for new technology but autopilot approach coupling really has nothing to do with steam or EFIS, but the autopilot itself.
__________________
Ryan Winslow
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-12-2010, 04:47 PM
rjtjrt rjtjrt is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironflight View Post
I think that ?in addition to the comments made above?, it doesn?t address the fact that there is a lot of flying behind glass displays by people who have not done a great deal of training with them. As has been pointed out, there is more button pushing and mode selecting to be done with modern glass than there was with steam gauges, and you need to take the time to learn how to operate the systems in order to take maximum advantage of them. Lots of pilots are not taking the time to learn their systems, and get bit by being in the wrong mode, or not being sure what is going to happen next because of it. The three most common phrases overheard in a glass cockpit environment?

1) "What's it doing now?"

2) " I didn't know it could do that!"

3) " What do you think it's going to do next?!"

Paul
Surely this means that a PC simulator (that can be flown with a simple joystick) is something every EFIS manufacturer should aim to provide as a high priority. We should all agitate for such a device so manufacturers regard it as a priority.
Either a stand alone program or as an add on to with one of the common flight sim programs.
John
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-12-2010, 04:53 PM
MrNomad's Avatar
MrNomad MrNomad is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 823
Smile No looking back!

Amen Bruce.

Admittedly, it took me a long time to adjust to glass coming out of a Cessna 150, but as these devices become more prevalent, standards will appear and the knowledge will become more commonplace.

But there is also the grief one goes thru with every emerging technology & I had my share of that.

In the final analysis, having an EFIS that gives me updated wind direction when landing with mtns all around me is REALLY helpful. With info like that you can predict what's going to happen versus waiting for it and then reacting.

That's been my experience.
__________________
Barry - Tucson
RV9A Superior O-360 (an amazing experience)
Dynon AP Garmin Sensenich F/P
2020 Dues paid. Thank u DR!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-12-2010, 04:55 PM
B25Flyer B25Flyer is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSFT-1 View Post
I have about a thousand hours PIC almost evenly spread between my RV-8 (steam gauges) and my RV-10 (dual EFIS).
Your first statement indicates that you have the experience to add to the technology and the result is capability...

I too am all for the technology, but it adds to, not reduces the experience needed to preclude confusion.....

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-12-2010, 06:06 PM
Alan Carroll's Avatar
Alan Carroll Alan Carroll is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironflight View Post
The other thing to realize is that because the report doesn?t differentiate between ?certified? systems and ?experimental? systems, it is hard to know for sure what is causing the accidents.
Paul,

Actually I think the report just considers certified systems installed between 2002 and 2006 - no experimental systems. The presentation slides include a list of the actual aircraft models considered in the study, copied below. Presumably these systems fit the description of being relatively "primitive"? (its seems sort of strange to think of something 8 years old as primitive, but I get your point)

Cessna Aircraft Corporation -172, 182, and 206 series
?
Cirrus Design Corporation -SR20 and SR22
?
Diamond Aircraft -DA40
?
Lancair/Columbia Aircraft/Cessna Aircraft Company
-300/350, and 400
?
Mooney-M20 series
?
Piper Aircraft Inc.
-PA-28-161, PA-28-181, PA-28-201, PA-32-301 series, and PA-46-350P
?
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation -36 series
__________________
Alan Carroll
RV-8 N12AC
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-13-2010, 06:16 AM
pierre smith's Avatar
pierre smith pierre smith is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Louisville, Ga
Posts: 7,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B25Flyer View Post
Your first statement indicates that you have the experience to add to the technology and the result is capability...

I too am all for the technology, but it adds to, not reduces the experience needed to preclude confusion.....

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
I'm with Bruce as well....however, the new glass stuff can be overwhelming if you let it.

That said, if you'll set minimum altitude bugs for your destination airport way in advance of arriving, set final approach heading bugs at the same time and in general, stay way ahead of the game, it makes life easier and much less rushed during the final phase.

I started flying in '67 and only started flying 'glass a year and a half ago, but man, do I love it! After four Saturdays of dual, under the foggles, getting back up to speed IFR, I really can honestly say,...it's so much easier to scan one instrument, my D-100, than 7, (six pack plus LOC/GS), during IFR flight and approaches.

Nope, I can't/won't go back

Best,
__________________
Pierre Smith
RV-10, 510 TT
RV6A (Sojourner) 180 HP, Catto 3 Bl (502Hrs), gone...and already missed
Air Tractor AT 502B PT 6-15 Sold
Air Tractor 402 PT-6-20 Sold
EAA Flight Advisor/CFI/Tech Counselor
Louisville, Ga

It's never skill or craftsmanship that completes airplanes, it's the will to do so,
Patrick Kenny, EAA 275132


Dues gladly paid!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:55 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.