The "safety" of glass

[Sig600]

Without thread reviving the old one that that turned into a "glass vs steam" discussion (and mainly because I can't find it) I'll start a new one.

Very interesting NTSB article on the safety stats of glass/steam. My big takeaway from this, like most things in aviation, is all the toys in the world can't fix stupid. It's all about the man in the box.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2010/100309.html

The study, which looked at the accident rates of over 8,000 small piston-powered airplanes manufactured between 2002 and 2006, found that those equipped with glass cockpits had a higher fatal accident rate then similar aircraft with conventional instruments.

[N941WR]

IMHO, there are other factors at work here besides the glass.

Many of those planes were SR-22's which are fast and slippery. I wonder if the time in type and total time have more to do with the accident rate than anything else.

I'll pick on the SR-22's here. How many of those accidents were caused by fairly low time, hard driving, pilots who thought they could fly in any weather because they had a BRS on board?

Is it similar to what the DOT found out regarding the accident rates when cars were first equiped with air bags and antilock brakes? They found that people tend to drive more aggressively (faster, tail gating, etc.) because they feel safer.

[Vlad]

Interesting analysis thanks for reference.

[Sig600]

Bill, pretty much my point that all the gizmos in the world won't correct poor headwork. It's interesting how few people understand that in aviation, you usually only get one chance to be wrong, make a mistake, or misjudge. I just found the study curious given the explosion of EFIS systems in the homebuilt market. At least from my position. I stopped paying attention to GA only about 5-6 years ago, I restart my 7 project, start looking at whats out there, and it's not only a whole new landscape but a whole new planet.

[Ironflight]

NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman highlighted the role that training plays in preventing accidents involving these airplanes.

"As we discussed today, training is clearly one of the key components to reducing the accident rate of light planes equipped with glass cockpits, and this study clearly demonstrates the life and death importance of appropriate training on these complex systems," said Hersman. "We know that while many pilots have thousands of hours of experience with conventional flight instruments, that alone is just not enough to prepare them to safely operate airplanes equipped with these glass cockpit features."

Absolutely! How many "experienced" pilots have gone through transition training in glass cockpits? How many have taken the time to REALLY learn all the ins and outs of their particular glass cockpit in their RV? I have zero doubt that an integrated avionics package is inherently going to provide a pilot with more intelligent data, taking much of the mental math out of the equation, allowing the pilot to better manage the flight, stay ahead of the game, and stay situationally aware. But ONLY if the equipment itself does not add an additional burden upon the pilot who is trying to figure out how it works - and how to work it.

You can't jump in and go (safely) without an educated transition - just like the old high-dollar professionals who own more airplane then they are have the experience to handle, we can't fool ourselves - safety starts with what's between the pilot's ears, not in front of his eyes.

Paul

[L.Adamson]

Originally Posted by Sig600

It's interesting how few people understand that in aviation, you usually only get one chance to be wrong, make a mistake, or misjudge.

I feel quite confident is guaranteeing...........that "glass" will offer "more" than that one chance to be wrong, make a mistake, or misjudge. I've read all the whys and wherefores of probably.... all flight into terrain accidents for many years. Glass will improve the odds, once we are to the point of being proficient in using it. It will not be a case of being just a gizmo or toy.........as some believe.

L.Adamson ---- RV6A

[Alan Carroll]

Originally Posted by N941WR

I'll pick on the SR-22's here. How many of those accidents were caused by fairly low time, hard driving, pilots who thought they could fly in any weather because they had a BRS on board?

This reminds me a little of the old joke about 4WD vehicles: they let you get stuck farther from the highway! I'm guessing that the glass panel gives some pilots the confidence to do things they otherwise wouldn't?

[bizjet]

Since I'm neither an RV owner, or builder, I mostly lurk, but this is a subject that I have some experience with. I began in 1960 with fabric, no electrics, and an armstrong starter. I have flown nothing but glass since 1992, but I spent many years with steam gauges. My take? Glass is best - safest too, but, But, BUT!!!

You the pilot absolutely, positively, must know how to operate your wonderful glass cockpit. I shudder at the errors I saw in early glass cockpit operations. No formal training - we just went out there an did it. Often very poorly, I might add. The smartest thing we did was to revert back to our level of comfort if things weren't going well. Get rid of the vertical nav, or any other advanced feature that was confusing. Back to as basic as made you comfortable.

My advice? Get all the advance training that you can, within realistic time and financial restraints. Use it in VFR in good weather until you really know what you are doing. I think that those fortunate young,or not so young, who fly instruments first with the super glass available to the experimentals will do just fine. It will simply be normal to them.

I might add that it has been my experience that glass is more reliable than steam gauges, whether they be vaccuum tubes, or pumps. XM weather! I'd live ten years longer if I'd had that 40 years ago! Rotary inverters! Yuk! INS's that drifted like mad! Yuk! Today is the Golden Age of aviation avionics.

Best,

Bill

[Mike S]

I am just barely starting to get used to the glass in my plane, luckily, I have a set of round gauges for backups-----

I have to make a conscious effort to use the glass for anything but the horizon.

What I am doing at this time is to look for the info on the GRT, then verify it on the steam gauge-----just to make sure I am looking at the correct bit of digital representation, not because I dont trust the GRT.

Part of what is giving me fits is the way things are presented, as well as the kind of info presented. I just found out tonight that the "cursor" or "bug" I have been chasing around on the panel is actually the "velocity vector"------(thanks Paul!) and what it is trying to show me.

Engine instruments excepted, for me they are a non issue, also because of no backups, the motivation is really there

As I see it, the learning curve is pretty steep for old guys like me, forty years flying behind round gauges gets burned into the old gray matter pretty well.

I suspect the younger folks who spend a lot of time flying a computer simulation will have a lot easier time of it. I happen to hate the computer sims, they just dont feel right to me.

Part of my plan is to get some stick on round covers for the steam gauges, and force myself to use the glass-------one of these days that is.

[fehdxl]

Of course the other side of this discussion is that many young guys and gals coming from the high-end professional flight schools only know glass and would have equally (if not more) of an issue going to an 'old school' 6-pack. Transition training, no matter which way, is necessary. Fly safe, -Jim