[Alan Carroll]

This should stir up some interesting discussion. On Tuesday the NTSB released a study of aircraft equipped with glass panels vs. conventional panels, based on piston-powered aircraft manufactured between 2002 and 2006:

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

NTSB's conclusion was that the conventional panel aircraft had a higher total accident rate, but that glass panel aircraft had a higher fatal accident rate. The reason seems to be that conventional panel aircraft are used more for training and for local flights, whereas the glass panel aircraft fly more cross country and IMC.

 

[terrykohler]

Is There a Reason for More Fatalaties?

Alan:
Does the final report (access not listed) show a link between the type of flying and the type of panel? If not, perhaps the fatality difference between glass and steam may not really be statistically significant and may not be related to the type of flying at all.
Just a personal observation, but I seem to notice that glass panels, while offering a significant advantage in situational awareness, can also contribute to too much staring inside the cockpit and not enough outside during flight in VMC. For instrument flight, the challenge is distilling down the information that's most important without becoming overloaded with information that isn't. That and the button pushing is all a matter of training, and is what the FAA is focused on.
If you think about it, the "six pack" is actually an SAE recommendation (or spec) dating back to the sixties. Pretty simple. Today, every EFIS comes with different buttons, screens and fairly unique programming sequences. Yup, I want one too.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

 

[Alan Carroll]

type of flying

Alan:
Does the final report (access not listed) show a link between the type of flying and the type of panel? If not, perhaps the fatality difference between glass and steam may not really be statistically significant and may not be related to the type of flying at all.
Just a personal observation, but I seem

Terry,

Good question. I've only found their conclusions and presentations (see previous link), which don't seem to address this point directly. It doesn't appear that they've posted the full report. It would certainly seem logical to examine the accidents in relation to type of flying rather than just what equipment they're carrying. Maybe they don't yet have enough numbers to do this in a statistically significant way?

It is perhaps important to note that their conclusion is not that glass panels are "less safe". Instead, what they are saying is that the available data do not support the conclusion that glass panels are "more safe". This leaves room for a lot of discussion over the reasons.

Also, they only considered type-certified aircraft, no homebuilts.

 

[DeltaRomeo]

Flying Magazine's E-I-C wrote on this report:

http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/left-seat/ntsb-misses-point

NTSB Misses the Point
March 10, 2010
9 by J. Mac McClellan
Earlier this week the NTSB launched a review of how glass cockpits have changed the safety of light airplanes. It is an important question, but like most discussion of advanced avionics, it misses the mark because it is too broad.

The electronic displays that have replaced the mechanical primary flight instruments in virtually all new production airplanes are not the issue. It is the information that is displayed on these PFD and MFD that matter. The NTSB is wondering if simply changing from the mechanical gyros and air data instruments to an electronic display of the same information matters, and the answer is no.

The important question is does the airplane have a fully integrated autopilot and flight director, and if so, have fewer pilots botched approaches and hit the ground? Does the airplane have a good traffic alert system, and if so, has it been involved in fewer midair collisions? Is an accurate terrain warning system installed, and if so, were there fewer controlled-flight-into-terrain accidents? Is there an altitude alerting system, and if so, were there fewer altitude deviations? Is there satellite weather, and if so, did pilots fly into severe convective weather less frequently?

I love glass cockpits and we will never go back, but the expanse of glass is only a canvas on which to present more information. A glass cockpit without a good flight director, terrain and traffic warning, weather information, and increasingly synthetic vision, is not going to make a difference in how well GA pilots do when it comes to controlling an airplane in IMC.

I hope the NTSB will refine its study and look at each of the new capabilities that have accompanied the glass revolution instead of simply trying to determine if a basic PFD makes a difference. It doesn't. But the glass display has made possible the delivery of new information that can ward off many of the most critical hazards of IFR flying and that's what matters, and I want to know how much difference that new information has made to safety.
​

 

[B25Flyer]

IMHO, Mac kinda missed the point too... The issue here has nothing to do with glass vs steam gauges, it has to do with an age old problem in aviation. Pilots want to buy experience.

There is a perception which is pushed by the purveyors of gadgets and airplanes that more features = more capability. That is only true if the pilot has the experience and skill to fly the airplane and have the excess mental capacity remaining to process and prioritize the inbound data stream.

For example, if you are using XM weather to penetrate a thunderstorm and you get caught by the 5 minute delay and find yourself in a cell... Stop looking at the XM. Use all your mental capacity to keep the airplane level and the speed undercontrol... Looking to the gadget that got you in trouble to get you out, is a fools errand... Easy to say, hard to do....

The people who buy the tech gadgets think the toys will keep, or get, them out of trouble... When things get tough the pilot needs to reduce the bandwidth between the pilot and the plane, not increase it....

Some features reduce workload, moving maps improve situational awareness. Synthetic vision is a huge helper, but I think it is too new to effect the statistics yet. But traffic, weather Flight management systems, and many other systems, all add to the workload they don't reduce it.

Features alone = confusion. Features plus experience = capability. The missing link in the NTSB study is experience. People have been sold on the impressive features these airplanes have and are trying to utilize them without the appropriate experience and the results are predictable.

This is not a new lesson. The cost of increasing the capability of an airplane is usually paid in blood. Beech paid it with the Bonanza, Lear paid it with the Learjet, Cessna paid it with the -300 & -400 twins, Piper paid it with the Malibu, and Cirrus is paying it with the SR series... All these airplanes had terrible safety records early until the insurance companies figured out that more experience and training was needed.

So far the only team to have escaped this lesson is TBM. They have been able to take the capability up a big step without their airplanes raining out of the sky... But their training is fairly tough and the airplane is tougher.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

 

[terrykohler]

Experience and Training

Doug:
Looks like you got all the shots in the center circle. Nice job.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

 

[Ironflight]

We were talking about this report at work today, and while it is good “data”, it doesn’t really provide much “information”….much like some of the more primitive Glass Cockpits. 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?!"

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. “Certified” systems tend to be a bit more primitive (if I can use that term) because many of the original systems are trying to emulate steam gauges – providing data rather than information. I recently flew some time in an ERJ simulator, and was reminded just how much more advanced our experimental EFIS’s are than what is flying in the certified world. Just the addition of Velocity Vectors and Highway in the Sky technology is a huge advance over the glass representation of a conventional ADI/HSI for approaches.

The NTSB data is good in that it does sensitize us to the potential pitfalls of flying glass without fully training for it, or for glass that doesn’t give us “information” rather than just “data”. But it only starts the process of asking the right questions. Those questions (and their answers) are what we need to address to get the full benefit of new technology.

Paul

 

[John Clark]

"Pilots want to buy experience"

Absolutely on point Doug.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

 

[Geico266]

Absolutely on point Doug.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

I agree with Doug and John!

When ever I find myself staring at the pretty gages too long I ask myself "Who is flying the airplane".

 

[Jamie]

Funny thing is....for that $70,000 G-1000/G-900X...the overall capability of the airplane is only increased by a very marginal amount, if at all.

 

[MSFT-1]

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.

 

[Flyfalcons]

I'm all for new technology but autopilot approach coupling really has nothing to do with steam or EFIS, but the autopilot itself.

 

[rjtjrt]

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

 

[MrNomad]

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.

 

[B25Flyer]

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

 

[Alan Carroll]

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

 

[pierre smith]

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,