What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Which gauges should stay "old school" in a glass cockpit

But while I love all the gadgets, I am very aware that each and every one is just another fancy toy that can break or just mess up. Electronic toys with computer chips especially. I will never put all my trust in them, no matter how many there are, especially when for very little money I can have a simple mechanical back up.

NO......................

They are NOT a fancy toy! I literally hate that interpretation! When I see another plane crash............such as last evenings, into the mountains in Arizona............I have to question, which "fancy" toy they apparently didn't have along. If you can tell, I take this very seriously! My "toys", would have kept me, miles away. I've studied CFIT for decades now. It will be "electronics", that will go along way to eliminate the phenomenon.

L.Adamson --- RV6
 
NO......................

They are NOT a fancy toy! I literally hate that interpretation! When I see another plane crash............such as last evenings, into the mountains in Arizona............I have to question, which "fancy" toy they apparently didn't have along. If you can tell, I take this very seriously! My "toys", would have kept me, miles away. I've studied CFIT for decades now. It will be "electronics", that will go along way to eliminate the phenomenon.

L.Adamson --- RV6

Didn't mean to rile you so!:) But I don't mean it literally, it's very difficult on the internet to choose the right words everyone will understand the same way. I think if you read all the posts I have made on the subject you might see I consider these to be more than just toys.

Yes these are useful tools, and can help keep people out of trouble. I've used them professionally (earlier versions) and plan on using them privately as well.

Nevertheless, they are machines, complex machines at that, and can and will continue to fail. People have been avoiding flying into cliff faces for years before these nice new tools we have now. (I am not passing judgement on this accident mind you) I plan on keeping as many options open as possible, including the use of "old" technology.

I also don't believe all this exciting new technology will ever keep people from having accidents.

Believe me, I am going to fill my panel with these nice tools, and I will enjoy their use. I hope you understand I have great respect for these tools, and would suggest that if I am willing to spend 30 or 40 k putting them in my airplane that maybe I might take them seriously as well, but I will never put all my trust into them, my experience with machines makes this quite clear to me.
 
I had an eighth grade science teacher that argued with me that computers would never catch on and that they were just toys. That was in 1982!

Old schooler's always reluctantly accept change no matter what the subject is.
 
People have been avoiding flying into cliff faces for years before these nice new tools we have now.

And while many haven't, there is far too many who have. I live in the mountain west. Out here, the terrain is dotted with many accident sites. We use to average three a year. It has slowed a bit.

L.Adamson
 
I went with two 10 inch dynon skyviews, each with a back up battery. Dual ADARS. SL 30 navcom, so 2 sources of navigation. Heated Pitot. Counting the alternator and the ships battery, triple redundant power for the skyviews. No mechanical gauges. Technically IFR legal, but I consider that to be a safety net. The mission is day/night VFR.
 
Paul,

You have more experience and hours than I would dream to ever have. I defer.

On the question of vibration and equipment reliability - I think these lists are filled with examples of equipment failures due primarily to vibration. VHF radios, transponders, alternators in spades have failed and my conjecture is that these are primarily vibration related. Usually when a product is weak the word is quickly out, the manufacturer either recovers or goes under. When a manufacturer has done their engineering right the products end up being bullet proof. We are indeed fortunate with some of the very complex modern circuit boards, components are very small and held in place with relatively large solder pads, lead free solder is also stronger, so we see relatively few failures for the complexity of the boards. Good for us.

On the question of the ASI and ALT - my comments were in the context that these were your only instruments. True if you lose the pitot you lose all airspeed but rpm, manifold pressure, trim, gps ( to a very limited extent) can be used for guidance. If all this is black - how do you get your clues near stall speed?

Regarding my experience with experimental EFIS, does it count if I built my own? Unfortunately I didn't have the wads of cash to buy GPS, EIS and Horizon only available at the time in separate instruments. I wanted a single MFD with all these in one instrument. I build my own paying attention to the details I have come to appreciate as important. It has let me down once in the 60 hours, my fault, finger problems.

I have some experience with other electronics devices for experimental Aircraft. Mostly these are exemplary, two independent system are almost certainly going to give the redundancy required. Myself, I have chosen well established suppliers for my other avionics. The options for my VFR RV-6 is if I have an electrical failure - the equipment is isolated, if I continue to have a problem the master switch is set off, and I fly home with compass, ASI and altimeter.

Just my view of the world,
Doug Gray
 
And while many haven't, there is far too many who have. I live in the mountain west. Out here, the terrain is dotted with many accident sites. We use to average three a year. It has slowed a bit.

L.Adamson

Not arguing with that fact. We are both right.

I remember an accident several years ago. Ball player in a Cirrus. Can't say for sure but odds are it was a pricey glass cockpit in there.

CFI on board.

VFR day.

Smacked right into a building.

You can put all the technology you want into an aircraft, people will still manage to find ways to kill themselves. How long have stall warning horns been in aircraft? How many stall spin accidents every year?

I'm not against the new technology, I think it has the possibility to enhance safety. I'm not an "old school" purist. I embrace these tech wonders, plan on using them extensively in my new plane, but I will never trust them completely. I want simple, uncomplicated, inexpensive backup. Why does that seem to get some folks back up so much? I'm not telling you what to put in your airplane, I'm simply saying what I want in mine and why.

My last flight, my back up handheld Garmin 386 suddenly stopped receiving the GPS signal completely. Still won't pick up any satellite signals. I have no idea why.
 
I remember an accident several years ago. Ball player in a Cirrus. Can't say for sure but odds are it was a pricey glass cockpit in there.

CFI on board.

VFR day.

Smacked right into a building.

We don't really want to use that as an example of glass cockpits and avoiding obstacles do we? Anyone that's aware of the cause and outcome, would realize that it had nothing to do with glass or electronics.

If I choose to fly below the peaks of a mountain canyon, the GPS will plainly show that I'm doing so. And I actually do that a lot. If I attempt to make a 360 degree turn that doesn't work out, due to speed and turning radius..........it's not the electronics fault. An electronic voice screaming "terrain, terrain, pull up, pullup", would have proceeded the event.

When I refer to CFIT's...............most all, are cases of where the pilots and passengers had no idea they would hit terrain within the next few seconds.

L.Adamson RV-6/Garmin 696
 
We don't really want to use that as an example of glass cockpits and avoiding obstacles do we? Anyone that's aware of the cause and outcome, would realize that it had nothing to do with glass or electronics.

If I choose to fly below the peaks of a mountain canyon, the GPS will plainly show that I'm doing so. And I actually do that a lot. If I attempt to make a 360 degree turn that doesn't work out, due to speed and turning radius..........it's not the electronics fault. An electronic voice screaming "terrain, terrain, pull up, pullup", would have proceeded the event.

When I refer to CFIT's...............most all, are cases of where the pilots and passengers had no idea they would hit terrain within the next few seconds.

L.Adamson RV-6/Garmin 696

No, it's an example of how all the technology and back up (CFI on board, day VFR) you might think of will not prevent accidents. I am referring to your comment of how these products will go a long way to "eliminate" the problem. I am skeptical of the "eliminate" part.

You mentioned CFIT incidents have gone down in your area in the last few years. That's great, but how does it compare with the amount of hours flown? I suspect that has dropped sharply in the last few years as well.

You don't need a glass cockpit to keep you "miles away" from a cliff face or a building. As a matter of fact I think it's quite likely that these new tools could easily lull some people into a false sense of security and they will actually fly closer to hard objects than they would if they did not have them installed. Nobody should ever be in a position where they are seconds or even minutes from impacting terrain or objects higher than them. I know people who will fly a lot closer to thunderstorms with XM weather than they used to. I love XM weather. I have years flying professionally in aircraft with on board radar and I like XM weather better. But I give myself a big margin with it, and will go a hundred miles out of my way to fly around a line of storms rather than penetrate it.

Is it overkill? Maybe, but it works for me.
 
Last edited:
I had an eighth grade science teacher that argued with me that computers would never catch on and that they were just toys. That was in 1982!

Old schooler's always reluctantly accept change no matter what the subject is.

You miss my point. I love the new gadgets, I'm going to spend some money buying them. I'll have a ball with them, and use them to both make my flying easier and safer.

I've used personal computers since 1982. Apples, PC 's, whatever. I've not had one yet, including my iPhone, iPad, television, automobile, almost anything with a computer chip in it where the computer or part of it did not malfunction at one time or another.

Anybody here have a computer that has never crashed, locked up, lost data?

I just want something besides a computer giving me data. That's all.
 
You don't need a glass cockpit to keep you "miles away" from a cliff face or a building. As a matter of fact I think it's quite likely that these new tools could easily lull some people into a false sense of security and they will actually fly closer to hard objects than they would if they did not have them installed. Nobody should ever be in a position where they are seconds or even minutes from impacting terrain or objects higher than them. I know people who will fly a lot closer to thunderstorms with XM weather than they used to. I love XM weather. I have years flying professionally in aircraft with on board radar and I like XM weather better. But I give myself a big margin with it, and will go a hundred miles out of my way to fly around a line of storms rather than penetrate it.

There will always be a few, that will venture close, due to technolgy. Out here in the mountain west, quickly rising terrain is always just a few miles away. Many pilots have hit this terrain, because they simply didn't know exactly where it was, in IMC conditions. Moving map GPS will tell you exactly where it is. Much better than any form of radio navigation that was previously available. There has been commercial, military, and private aircraft hitting mountains around here. In the last 10 years, two had CFI's aboard. CFIT got my attention, when a United Airlines DC-8 slammed into the mountain above my home (1977). With today's technology, that wouldn't have happened.

L.Adamson
 
...If all this is black - how do you get your clues near stall speed?...

...I want simple, uncomplicated, inexpensive backup...

How about eyes, ears and your backside?

We're talking RV's, VFR/day, right? Not Learjets... not the Space Shuttle...

If the pilot of an RV can't see/recognize an unusual attitude, or hear/feel a stall coming on without looking at the panel, then it's time to get out to the practice area, turn all the magic off for a while, and fly the airplane. JMHO
 
How about eyes, ears and your backside?

We're talking RV's, VFR/day, right? Not Learjets... not the Space Shuttle...

If the pilot of an RV can't see/recognize an unusual attitude, or hear/feel a stall coming on without looking at the panel, then it's time to get out to the practice area, turn all the magic off for a while, and fly the airplane. JMHO

No, I'm talking about how I want to outfit my RV for my mission - light IFR conditions, where I can file an IFR flight plan and fly through clouds over areas with medium to high ceilings instead of scud running. It will be equipped to fly in much worse weather - approaches to minimums and such, and I have the training and ability to do that, but I will most likely not go somewhere if the weather is forecast that bad. I'm not that big into single engine IFR or even night anymore, though I love flying at night.

If my mission was day VFR only I would not spend my money on fancy glass panels. I flew many hours in high performance planes with nothing more than basic engine instruments and an altimeter, airspeed indicator, one comm, a handheld GPS and a chart for navigation. I teach aerobatics and how to recover from unusual attitudes, I feel my stick and rudder skills are adequate.

Always fun to practice though!
 
There will always be a few, that will venture close, due to technolgy. Out here in the mountain west, quickly rising terrain is always just a few miles away. Many pilots have hit this terrain, because they simply didn't know exactly where it was, in IMC conditions. Moving map GPS will tell you exactly where it is. Much better than any form of radio navigation that was previously available. There has been commercial, military, and private aircraft hitting mountains around here. In the last 10 years, two had CFI's aboard. CFIT got my attention, when a United Airlines DC-8 slammed into the mountain above my home (1977). With today's technology, that wouldn't have happened.

L.Adamson

You may be right, and I certainly hope that CFIT's will become a thing of the past with the advent of the new equipment. But I have been alive long enough now that I know nothing comes for free in life, everything has a price, and everything comes with unintended or even unknown consequences.

I refer you to the Peltzman Effect - a known scientific phenomenon where increasing safety technology can lead to more dangerous behavior in people, thinking the new technology will save their butts.

A good example of this has been the installation of anti-lock brakes in cars. At first blush I might think there is no doubt this had led to less injuries and saved lives, but has it? It has been shown that many people now drive much faster than they used to in marginal conditions, feeling they have more control. In other words technology designed to make things safer actually leads to riskier behavior in the user. It's a very real effect, and people need to be aware of it.

In any case, I think that both of us are on the same page in that our main concern is for safety, and as a flight instructor, aerobatic instructor, unusual attitude instructor that has always been my main focus. I simply try to teach people how not to kill themselves in an airplane. Being in the aerobatic community for the last twenty years, I have lost far too many friends and acquaintances to ever take safety lightly.

best,

Damon
 
My comfort level with backups for instrument flying leads to to retain my mechanical ASI, ALT, wet compass, TruTrak ADI Pilot I and MD200 CDI with my single-screen G3X.

My G3X primarily gets my attention and I've thought about 2nd screen, but, for now, my current setup, meets my needs.

Mike
 
Round Dials and Glass Panels

There was a certain elegance in the design of instrument panels with round dial instruments, and I don't mean that in a romantic sense for old times sake. With the "T" instrument arrangement, the airspeed needle at approach speed was in the right side of the case, allowing a quick and accurate instrument scan. The altimeter was not as easy to read, as there were times when the needle went up to minimums, and other times when it went down to minimums (difference between the right and left side of the instrument). For the airspeed indicator, altimeter, and g-meter, they are (my opinion) best viewed as a round dial because one can see both the full range, and detect movement from peripheral vision. Those are the three instruments I retained in my RV-8, and I am using the Dynon D-10A for attitude and heading.

Things that don't move as much, such as engine instruments, are ideal for conversion to glass, with the added benefit that you can program the limits. The example I like to think about are the older airplanes where the engine instruments are in a tiny panel either low in the pilot's field of view, or on the right side of the panel altogether. Hard to see the oil pressure needle flicker and fall to zero in those locations. But with glass, it is right there in front of you, plus a warning.

If your flying is mainly for cross country cruise and instrument proficiency, a well selected glass panel will work great. Corporate aircraft and now even LSAs are getting this technology. But if you want to do aerobatics and fly formation, where quick and accurate glances are necessary, the round dials are still very useful. Remember too that digital readouts require mental processing time, where an analog reading is rather instantaneous, because we are so good at pattern recognition. It will be interesting to see if the generation raised with video games blows right past us old pattern recognizers because they are so good with digits!

When GPS came out, my impression was that people would give up on knowing exactly where on the map they were, and safety would suffer. But the reverse is true: GPS is a huge benefit to safety, and with moving maps we know where we are better than ever before! My only requirement for GPS is that it be panel mounted to avoid mounts and wires, which is another huge endorsement for glass.

So it depends on what you want to do with your RV, and how well you set things up for electrical redundancy. Because of much higher reliability and functionality, glass is here to stay. But for readabilty, round dials have their place. How many of you still have analog watches?
 
I'm in the early design phase of a glass cockpit and trying to determine which panel gauges need to persistent.

Definitely the Airspeed indicator and the Altimeter.

What about the Oil temp / pressure ?

Others?

Glen,
This reminds me of an oil post. ;) It is funny how a search for opinions can show so much diversity. I hope the homestead is ready for winter and you are still getting some flying in. I sold my F1 with glass panel to go back to a somewhat more traditional panel. I wanted to spend more time aviating and less time wandering through and wondering about screens.

Best,
George
 
By and large, this thread has been educational. I hope it won't dissuade anyone that my thinking for the panel redesign hasn't changed :eek:

If money (and space) were no issue, I'd likely end up with something close to Pierre's panel. Since my mission is VFR, I thankfully will be able to simplify.

... now if MGL, Dynon, and TruTrak would just stop innovating I could settle on a panel ! :D
 
I just spoke with Todd at Grand Rapids Technology on another subject and in the course of the discussion I mentioned I wanted to put 3 back up steam gauges in (ASI, ALT, and AH). His comment was given a choice he thought putting a dual AHRS in and having dual screens (I'm putting an HX and an HS in) on separate busses with dual batteries would be a more reliable method of creating redundancy than putting in the steam gauges.

I'm pondering his opinion and would enjoy hearing what others think about his comment. I do not intend to fly hard IFR but would like the ability to get above low ceilings (not to minimums) and to deal with unexpected changes in weather.
 
I just spoke with Todd at Grand Rapids Technology on another subject and in the course of the discussion I mentioned I wanted to put 3 back up steam gauges in (ASI, ALT, and AH). His comment was given a choice he thought putting a dual AHRS in and having dual screens (I'm putting an HX and an HS in) on separate busses with dual batteries would be a more reliable method of creating redundancy than putting in the steam gauges.

I'm pondering his opinion and would enjoy hearing what others think about his comment. I do not intend to fly hard IFR but would like the ability to get above low ceilings (not to minimums) and to deal with unexpected changes in weather.

I was thinking about that design but end up with that plus steam gauges.

My decision was based on two factors, simplicity and reliability for backup. Steam gauges are far less capable then EIFS but also much more simpler and they have no software thus hardly anything can go wrong with them.

Also, I will not discount the possibility of a complete electrical melt down or a software bug that will effect both systems while HW wise functioning all well.

Having said that, I love my GRT Horizon.


DSC_6147 by bavafa1, on Flickr
 
This thread certainly shows evidence of how information that we once looked at as a ?luxury? (i.e. cell phones) has now become a ?requirement?, despite the fact that the actual environment has not changed all that much. Thanks to the glass revolution, we are flying predominately day/VFR airplanes that have more information and redundancy than many airliners, yet the loss of this information is considered ?critical?? How did people ever fly Luscombes and J-3?s back in the ?old days??

If you want to find out what ?backup? instruments you need, define your requirements (including a risk assessment), and then select equipment based on probability of failure. If you plan on flying a lot of hard IFR in the mountains at night, you are going to have different requirements than someone who just might someday find himself stuck on top of a cloud layer after a Sunday burger run.

I think people forget that driving the probability of failure of a system to near zero is not only very expensive, but rarely warranted. We are not shooting a billion dollar probe to Mars here?
 
By and large, this thread has been educational. I hope it won't dissuade anyone that my thinking for the panel redesign hasn't changed :eek:

If money (and space) were no issue, I'd likely end up with something close to Pierre's panel. Since my mission is VFR, I thankfully will be able to simplify.

... now if MGL, Dynon, and TruTrak would just stop innovating I could settle on a panel ! :D

If your mission is VFR then go bare bones and enjoy looking out the window instead of the gadgets in your panel. Add a panel mounted VFR GPS to back up your pilotage and have fun!
 
Add a panel mounted VFR GPS to back up your pilotage and have fun!

Well, there in lies the rub. The current panel is FULL of round gauges. Nearly half the panel is little round engine gauges.

So, the first step was to simplify the engine gauges so I could fit a GPS. Also, the TruTrak AP has already given me a scare so it may be giving me advance notice of it's departure.
 
If your mission is VFR then go bare bones and enjoy looking out the window instead of the gadgets in your panel. Add a panel mounted VFR GPS to back up your pilotage and have fun!

My Garmin 696 with XM weather................has been a wonderful device for looking out the window. I've always been able to make weather decisions far in advance, as well as exceptional cross country flight planning in a mountainous environment.

And if worse goes to worse, as has happened for several close friends and six other acquaintances.............a good moving map GPS with terrain databases can save your life, even if the flight started as a normal VFR event.

L.Adamson
 
You don't need to back up "glass" with Steam....you can back it up with dissimilar glass just as well.

I've been much more serious about a panel refresh lately and looking at efficient implementations by respected builders.

Paul - can you give some insight for choosing a traditional airspeed indicator for your RV-3B ?
 
I bought a iFly as Backup

The iFly 720 GPS I have is my glass backup for my MGL Odyssey. The 720 has an instruments page that is very accurate except air speed is a bit lower than true. It also has a weather option I plan to use when the price of the rec/trans devices go down. I am impressed with the iFly and it will serve well as a backup if the MGL fails. What's more, as tecs change and it becomes obsolete it is a lot simpler to just trade up than to refill holes in the panel.
Bill Phillips
RV-8a Bluebird
 
Back in the late 80's, I was a young pup and I bought a 59' PA 22/20 from a dear crop duster friend of mine. He had experienced and lived thru several wrecks in his 70 yrs in Stearmans to Agtractors. He flew with me every day for about a week until I could land it halfway decent. If he caught me looking at my gauges on short final or landing, he would give me a sharp elbow right in the ribs! It was very uncomfortable at first but I caught on quick. My 7 is going to have all the glass I can afford and maybe a round ASI and Alt but the first thing Im going to work on is keeping my head out of the cockpit!
 
Habit Patterns

In my -8A I have steam gage airspeed, VSI and altimeter backups below my AFS 4500. Rarely look at airspeed indicator, often look at altimeter, but almost always use the VSI. Guess my mind likes the trending info provided by a moving needle.
 
Back
Top