jthomas

Member
I fly glass at work but have always been a fan of the standard six pack panels, I am starting to think about my 9 panel, with the price of the glass now would it be better to stick with glass, How much more weight is added with steam gages, I assume the glass is an easier install? Besides the obvious what would be the pros and cons? Thanks for the input.
 
I fly glass at work but have always been a fan of the standard six pack panels, I am starting to think about my 9 panel, with the price of the glass now would it be better to stick with glass, How much more weight is added with steam gages, I assume the glass is an easier install? Besides the obvious what would be the pros and cons? Thanks for the input.

Anymore glass is FAR more reliable, cheaper and far superior in functionality...just forget the STEAM and move on! :)

I could write pages on this (and have), but trust me on this one...

Cheers,
Stein
 
Last edited:
I think Stein meant "Forget the STEAM and move on".....

I agree - except for the nostalgia value, or if you happen to have a panel full of steam gauges sitting around and you want o build inexpensively, Glass is pretty much the cheaper, easier, and more reliable option these days for an airplane where you want some sort of navigational capability. If I was building a local-only, lightweight Acro machine, then I'd put in a mechanical ASI and Altimeter, and call it good. Otherwise, a simple glass six-pack replacement will buy you a lot....

Paul
 
Glass is pretty much the cheaper, easier, and more reliable option these days for an airplane

Hmmm, dont know about that, I am an avionics LAME in OZ and lately we have started doing work on experimentals. When doing inst 8's and 9's we have found that quite often we have to re-calibrate non certified instruments. What we are seeing is that on a lot of occasions we see that the back-up steam gauges are within limits but the glass instruments require adjustment. I am not saying that they are very bad, but there does seem to be some inaccuracies in the non certified glass that we dont see in the certified stuff, IE Garmin 1000 systems dont seem to be a problem.
Having said all of that I have installed a 4 screen GRT system with duel AHRS in my 7 and have no back-up steam gauges, but then again I can test and calibrate often at no cost.
Its not all bad, but just be aware that just because its wizz bang modern screens does not guarantee accuracy.:)
 
Display reliability?

Anymore glass is FAR more reliable, cheaper and far superior in functionality...just forget the glass and move on! :)

I could write pages on this (and have), but trust me on this one...

Cheers,
Stein
Stein, my glass is somewhat dated now being 2003 vintage. I have had display failures in a KMD150 and my Dynon and a functional failure in my Microair transponder. All related to cool high moisture content AM operations. All returned to normal as the day warmed. My 396 has not failed under the same conditions. Have the manufacturers improved sealing or provided internal heat to solve this problem with glass displays? Or taken other steps?
 
I fly glass at work but have always been a fan of the standard six pack panels, I am starting to think about my 9 panel, with the price of the glass now would it be better to stick with glass, How much more weight is added with steam gages, I assume the glass is an easier install? Besides the obvious what would be the pros and cons? Thanks for the input.

Think about running vacuum lines, pump, pitot/static, wiring, c/b's, etc and the rats nest that goes with all that. Then think about just running wires and lines to a "brain," with output to a few screens, and no vacuum pump to fail/drag on the engine. Not only is glass easier to maintain and install, it's more reliable, getting cheaper by the day, and brings capabilities that were science fiction only 8-10 years ago.
 
I fly glass at work but have always been a fan of the standard six pack panels,

I'm sure Advanced Flight Systems heard the same comment a few times. Would this help?
6-pack_447x357.jpg
 
... glass is FAR more reliable ...
Cheers,
Stein

I've read this claim many times, from many sources, but would like to review the data myself. Can anyone point me to the raw data or analysis that addresses the difference in reliability between steam and glass?

I also prefer the "look and feel" of six-pack steam flight instruments (not nav), but if I can get x2 or x3 reliability from glass, then I'll probably go glass in my -9A.

Thanks
John
 
The reliability question is more complicated than "which is better". I think it really comes down to whether you want or need an attitude instrument(s).

I started with a full conventional panel including vacuum gyros, and the gyros were definitely the weak link both in terms of plumbing hassles and performance. I later switched to an EFIS and its a big improvement in this area.

The conventional pitot static instruments on the other hand were completely trouble free, and require exactly the plumbing connections as the EFIS. I still have the original altimeter and airspeed indicator installed and they work flawlessly.

Something that doesn't seem to get mentioned very often is that the EFIS backlight can fail and take out everything (this happened to me and I think its not all that uncommon). A common solution is to install two EFISs for redunancy, but that pretty much eliminates any cost advantage over "steam".
 
This:

Pros: James, since you fly for a living, I can assume that you're instrument rated?
It's so much easier to scan a glass panel during an approach with the GS and LOC needles overlaid on the HSI page than scanning seven round dials in an older cockpit.

There's a big weight savings.

The cost is close to steam gauges, unless you buy multiple screens.

Waaay more information, like gallons remaining upon reaching your waypoint, fuel milage in GPH, winds aloft continuously displayed/updated, TAS always shown, including OAT, accurate LOP operation avoiding engine damage, AOA shown on screen + G's if activated. Traffic can be shown on the screen, etc, etc:)

Cons: You have to sit and learn which buttons to push for fuel added, menu navigation, etc.

A power failure during IMC operations, unless you have a secondary electrical system, or, as in my case, the Dynon-100 has its own internal battery that is supposed to be good for two hours.

Here's a shot of my older D-100 with the HSI showing as my default boot-up screen (your choice):

154TAS.jpg


Notice the wind direction and speed, plus crosswind component. Note the difference in track vs. heading on the HSI as a result of the crosswind, also my TAS.

Need I say more?:)

Best,
 
When to "upgrade"

I think it would be an easy decision in a new build and as Paul and Alan imply, you need attitude which implies IMC.

I have come close to pulling the trigger on moving to glass in my 96 6A a few times. But, where I live and fly, clouds have ice and rocks in them so my mission is strictly VMC. And after flying around the West for ten years and getting familiar with its prominant landmarks, I find about all I use my moving map GPS for is ground speed and ETE to plan gas and potty stops. Still running a six pack with electric AI(bought it out of DR's old panel). It is switched and I have not turned it on other than to test since installed.

Glass sure appeals but i certainly can't justify taking out what works perfectly for the mission. I tell myself that I will make the change when something breaks, but it won't! The fact that they keep making it better and cheaper every year doesn't help.

The answer boils down to - mission.
 
I think it would be an easy decision in a new build and as Paul and Alan imply, you need attitude which implies IMC.

I have come close to pulling the trigger on moving to glass in my 96 6A a few times. But, where I live and fly, clouds have ice and rocks in them so my mission is strictly VMC. And after flying around the West for ten years and getting familiar with its prominant landmarks, I find about all I use my moving map GPS for is ground speed and ETE to plan gas and potty stops. Still running a six pack with electric AI(bought it out of DR's old panel). It is switched and I have not turned it on other than to test since installed.

Glass sure appeals but i certainly can't justify taking out what works perfectly for the mission. I tell myself that I will make the change when something breaks, but it won't! The fact that they keep making it better and cheaper every year doesn't help.

The answer boils down to - mission.

My flying is also in the mountainous west. I've used my moving map GPSs (last is a Garmin 696) extensively.....with XM satellite weather. I found it extremely useful for long cross country flights, where weather wasn't all blue sky from departure to destination. Little additions such as real time TFRs are also a nice feature.

L.Adamson
 
Harness Weight?

Just curious - how much does the wiring and connectors all weigh for a simple glass panel?

I'm thinking of one that has a single glass screen, the main sensor box, a GPS, EMS and autopilot. On the web sites, the system weights are given but that harness has got to be heavy - how heavy?

Thanks,
Dave
 
Just curious - how much does the wiring and connectors all weigh for a simple glass panel?

I'm thinking of one that has a single glass screen, the main sensor box, a GPS, EMS and autopilot. On the web sites, the system weights are given but that harness has got to be heavy - how heavy?

According to the Skyview installation guide (appendix B), using a 10" display and a 4-cyl EMS, you'd be looking at about 14lb including the AP servos (which are about 4lbs on their own). This does not include a couple of items (sv-net-servo and -hub) -- I can't find a weight for those. So, I'd guess about 15.5lbs all in.
 
My experience

I've read this claim many times, from many sources, but would like to review the data myself. Can anyone point me to the raw data or analysis that addresses the difference in reliability between steam and glass?

I also prefer the "look and feel" of six-pack steam flight instruments (not nav), but if I can get x2 or x3 reliability from glass, then I'll probably go glass in my -9A.

Thanks
John


I too would like to see some data on this.

My personal experience over thirty years of flying is glass is not as reliable as steam. I have far more time behind steam than glass, and the glass was professional grade stuff in a EMB-120 Brasilia. I had more failures in three years of flying glass than I have over thirty of steam use.

That was back in the nineties, so perhaps things are more reliable now. Having said that, I will say every computer, smartphone, tablet, GPS, satellite TV receiver, or almost anything with computer chips that runs software I have owned has failed, locked up, crashed, or just screwed up in one way or another.

It seems to me there are far more failure modes with glass than steam. Lots more ways things can go wrong. Especially if software is involved.

Anytime electrons are involved, there is potential for trouble. In all the airplanes I have owned, from a Citabria to a Baron, I have never had a steam failure, but I have spent a ton of money fixing electronic things like radios and autopilots.

A friend of mine that is a DAR has recertified several all glass cockpit Cirrus aircraft imported back into the country. His advice to the new owners after going through the logs is to budget $500/month for avionics bills.

All this is obviously anecdotal. I would also be interested in seeing any data/analysis on reliability.

Having said all of this:), I do plan on using glass in my airplane, but it will be backed up with dual everything, back up batteries, and some steam gauges. If I end up spending a lot of money fixing problems, I can always take it out and put it up for sale!
 
Believe it or don't, the glass IS far more reliable than the steam stuff. The raw data analysis has been done many times over by air agencies, military, governments, and private enterprise. My background is also in the heavy iron, and specifically some time in the reliability department where we generated reams upon reams of data on every minute piece of an airliner. The Brasilia example is a terrible one, because it was certified with old Collins Proline II "glass" designed in the 70's (now almost 40 years old). I'd venture to say some of the sensors in even the lowest cost EFIS or an Ipad are equal to or superior to what was considered state of the art back then.

Personal anecdotal experiences aside, it's really a moot discussion because as I've said before, like or to not the steam stuff is going the way of the dinosaurs. Even the little peanut standby instrument in the heavy iron are all digital (no "steam" in new airliners) and fighters.

No to be sarcastic and I'm probably gonna raise some hackles with this (no flames intended), but again it's a relative waste of time to even discuss it because it doesn't matter what anyones personal experience behind old stuff in old airliners is (and even that is dubious because an individual exposure to the life & abuse of a system in an airliner flying 10+hrs per day 7 days per week is not a good data point), the world is going glass - period. Glass of old does not equal glass of new.

Regarding costs, the Chinese Steam stuff is cheap but terrible in the reliability department. That leaves you with certified stuff, and set of gyros (plus an HSI) will run you MUCH higher than the cost of a simple EFIS. Here's some quick math:

Gyros: - about $6K for certified ones.
Simple CDI - $1800 (no HSI)
ASI+ALT+VSI: $1K for decent ones.
HSI - No way anyone would even consider an analog HSi at $7-10K so we'll leave that out.

That's almost $9K right there and you still don't have an HSI, Autopilot, OAT, AOA, no compass, no fuel computer, no trim indicators, no flap indicators, no warning systems, no annunciator, no moving map, no weather, no terrain, no traffic, no charts, no plates, no sectionals, no Ammeter, no voltmeter, no tachometer, no egt, no cht, no fuel pressure, no oil pressure, no oil temp, no manifold pressure, no W&B, no checklists, no hobbs meter, no G meter, no flight planning, etc.. All of the above which can be had in everything from a Dynon, AFS, GRT and Garmin for about the same price.

Engine instruments are also far superior digitally than analog and have been for some time. Boeing/Airbus/Douglas/Lockheed quit using analog engine instrumentation sometime in the previous century. Again somewhat dubious to debate because that's where the world is going. Even for simple VFR, you're way farther ahead to just go buy a good EFIS and be done with it.

That being said, if you're really stuck on old stuff - I have a box of old steam guages that are for sale cheap! However, if you put it in the plane it'll be worth a whole lot less money and a whole lot less functional than if you'd spent the exact same amount on glass - that's a fact. I won't get into the Space Shuttle metrics but Paul can probably fill us in on that history/progression!

Cheers,
Stein
 
Having both steam and glass is very good. EFIS' don't have bearings that wear, vacuum systems to fail, they don't tumble, they put up useful information...it's a computer. Make it as fancy as your wallet allows.

BUT...

They're horrible human interfaces. I retain a big 3 1/8" four-pack surrounding the EFIS because they're so easy to use. Glance, and you know. An EFIS you have to focus on, read, and interpret. Especially AS. I'm shopping EFIS' right now for the next project, and the universal characteristic is clutter. Oh, you'd get used to a particular unit, but they are not easy to use. You could drop me into a six-pack airplane without any briefing and I could fly an approach.

I've built several panels for various -7s. The absolute happiest is a four-pack surrounding a D6 in the AH position, and a D10A in the DG position for an HSI. Dual EFIS redundancy, round dials for legibility for the 98% of my flying that isn't instruments.

John Siebold
 
The Brasilia example is a terrible one, because it was certified with old Collins Proline II "glass" designed in the 70's (now almost 40 years old).

Interesting. No wonder I wasn't impressed with the reliability.


Personal anecdotal experiences aside, it's really a moot discussion because as I've said before, like or to not the steam stuff is going the way of the dinosaurs.

I don't doubt it.

No to be sarcastic and I'm probably gonna raise some hackles with this (no flames intended), but again it's a relative waste of time to even discuss it because it doesn't matter what anyones personal experience behind old stuff in old airliners is (and even that is dubious because an individual exposure to the life & abuse of a system in an airliner flying 10+hrs per day 7 days per week is not a good data point), the world is going glass - period. Glass of old does not equal glass of new.

It does indeed matter what someone's personal experience is. Good or bad, that's how most of us make decisions about almost everything in life. By this I guess you are saying the new glass stuff is even more reliable than every computer, smartphone, tablet, satellite TV receiver, aircraft GPS, car GPS on the market now? They will never crash, lock up, lose data, get a virus, need to be rebooted? My repair bills will not someday go through the roof like they have on the simple nav/comm radios and autopilots I have owned previously?

I have never had a totally reliable computer, or computer driven device in the thirty or so years I've used them. I am skeptical this new glass will prove to be any better than all these other devices I use all the time, but as I said I do plan on buying them. I also plan on having a lot of back up. From airliners to the Space Shuttle, I'll bet the redundancy of the systems is more than double in most. Triple or better in most airliners I flew, and I'd wager the Shuttle had more redundancy than most airliners.

I'm going to use glass, I like it for a lot of reasons, but I am not dazzled by it like so many people seem to be. I am old enough to look at a car with all those fancy gadgets and toys on them and think to myself "that's all going to break someday and I will have to pay to fix it". I have never had a totally reliable computer or computerized device in my life, and I don't believe these devices are any better. So I will look forward to my nice glass cockpit, but I will have plenty of redundancy.
 
Thanks for the info, It is amazing how much info you can get on this board, hard to imagine building an RV without it.
I have flown glass for the past 13 years in Citation Ultra, X and now in the Sovereign and have only had 1 tube failure and that was on the ground at a service center so I think the reliabilty is good, I think I will just stick with glass. Now I guess I just have to make up my mind on which one.
Thanks
James
 
Another point not mentioned is that if you go EFIS, you get an autopilot just for the price of the servos. You already bought the brain.
 
It does indeed matter what someone's personal experience is. Good or bad, that's how most of us make decisions about almost everything in life.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is why people make *bad* decisions about all sorts of things in life.

Give me facts and data and analysis, in lieu of anecdotal "evidence", and I'll make a better decision.
 
One thing to consider is failure *modes*, as well.

A vacuum-driven system may fail slowly, such that it is not apparent for quite some time that it has actually failed. One CFII I knew used to put every new student, regardless of what they were coming to him for (new instrument rating, recurrency, commercial, whatever) into a simulator and then fail the vacuum pump, slowly.

He said that every single student he had followed the AI right into the ground. Every one.

Contrast that with a failure of the equivalent system in an EFIS, the AHRS (or ADAHRS) head. This should generate all sorts of warnings and red X's and whatnot on the screen (and in your ears, if you have audio alerts).

I'll take the latter failure mechanism, because it's unambiguous and I can deal with it (via redundant backup EFIS, or a second AHRS, or what have you).

So it's not all about MTBF (but I'd be curious to compare MTBFs for vacuum pumps against the leading EFIS systems, if anyone has that data).
 
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is why people make *bad* decisions about all sorts of things in life.

Give me facts and data and analysis, in lieu of anecdotal "evidence", and I'll make a better decision.


Yes I agree. However, if you happen to buy a car that is a lemon, and spend a lot of money fixing it, I bet you won't buy that car again no matter what Consumer Reports says about the reliability. And since every single computerized device I have ever used in the last 30 years has failed or had problems in one way or another, can you blame me for being skeptical that in these products they finally got it right? Especially if my safety is on the line?

And I still haven't seen references to the data and analysis.
 
One thing to consider is failure *modes*, as well.

A vacuum-driven system may fail slowly, such that it is not apparent for quite some time that it has actually failed. One CFII I knew used to put every new student, regardless of what they were coming to him for (new instrument rating, recurrency, commercial, whatever) into a simulator and then fail the vacuum pump, slowly.

He said that every single student he had followed the AI right into the ground. Every one..

I had that very experience in a sim. It was pretty basic training when I got my IFR, and a core part of training at my airline as well to fail an AI. If you have been trained properly you usually have a pretty good scan going in instruments. As soon as you see the altimeter changing along with the VSI and airspeed you usually go straight to the AI and the T&B. If they don't agree, it's pretty easy to tell which one is wrong, based on the info from the other instruments.

If those students all flew into the ground because they blindly flew the AI without a scan, then they are too poorly trained to fly anything in IFR, no matter what equipment they have available. I've read cases on this forum where the ADHRS failed and the picture on the screen banked one way. No warnings or red X's. A 3" instrument is hard enough to ignore, how easy is it for someone to ignore what a 10" screen is telling you? If the two screens disagree, will you be able to quickly assess which one is erroneous, and turn it off? It's almost instantaneous on a six pack, just by needle positions, you don't even need to read the numbers.

Again, please don't misunderstand me, I like glass, even when I flew behind it in the Brasilia's. I'm very likely going to put it in my own plane! However, I think my doubts and questions are reasonable and prudent.

Technology will never be able to make up for lack of training, or bad decisions in the cockpit. One statistic I am familiar with is the Cirrus has higher than average fatal accident rate, and an all-glass cockpit plus BRS doesn't seem to help there. http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cirrus_Safety_Record_Average_205914-1.html
 
Last edited:
Lots of great info in this thread - thanks to all of you who have contributed anecdotal as well as data to the conversation. I'm several years away from my panel in the -10, and don't have lots of experience behind glass or steam, but have 20 years in the IT business.

One key fact about computer systems i.e. glass, is that the failures (typically 65% of them) are directly related to a change. That change is often introduction of new software/firmware versions and in some cases hardware modifications.

Perhaps it would be wise to have a solid test plan that gets executed after any change is made to glass instruments. I haven't seen any discussion on that (perhaps I missed it), so does anyone have a test plan that they execute after updating firmware or map data on their glass?
 
As usual

Believe it or don't, the glass IS far more reliable than the steam stuff. The raw data analysis has been done many times over by air agencies, military, governments, and private enterprise. My background is also in the heavy iron, and specifically some time in the reliability department where we generated reams upon reams of data on every minute piece of an airliner. The Brasilia example is a terrible one, because it was certified with old Collins Proline II "glass" designed in the 70's (now almost 40 years old). I'd venture to say some of the sensors in even the lowest cost EFIS or an Ipad are equal to or superior to what was considered state of the art back then.

Personal anecdotal experiences aside, it's really a moot discussion because as I've said before, like or to not the steam stuff is going the way of the dinosaurs. Even the little peanut standby instrument in the heavy iron are all digital (no "steam" in new airliners) and fighters.

No to be sarcastic and I'm probably gonna raise some hackles with this (no flames intended), but again it's a relative waste of time to even discuss it because it doesn't matter what anyones personal experience behind old stuff in old airliners is (and even that is dubious because an individual exposure to the life & abuse of a system in an airliner flying 10+hrs per day 7 days per week is not a good data point), the world is going glass - period. Glass of old does not equal glass of new.

Regarding costs, the Chinese Steam stuff is cheap but terrible in the reliability department. That leaves you with certified stuff, and set of gyros (plus an HSI) will run you MUCH higher than the cost of a simple EFIS. Here's some quick math:

Gyros: - about $6K for certified ones.
Simple CDI - $1800 (no HSI)
ASI+ALT+VSI: $1K for decent ones.
HSI - No way anyone would even consider an analog HSi at $7-10K so we'll leave that out.

That's almost $9K right there and you still don't have an HSI, Autopilot, OAT, AOA, no compass, no fuel computer, no trim indicators, no flap indicators, no warning systems, no annunciator, no moving map, no weather, no terrain, no traffic, no charts, no plates, no sectionals, no Ammeter, no voltmeter, no tachometer, no egt, no cht, no fuel pressure, no oil pressure, no oil temp, no manifold pressure, no W&B, no checklists, no hobbs meter, no G meter, no flight planning, etc.. All of the above which can be had in everything from a Dynon, AFS, GRT and Garmin for about the same price.

Engine instruments are also far superior digitally than analog and have been for some time. Boeing/Airbus/Douglas/Lockheed quit using analog engine instrumentation sometime in the previous century. Again somewhat dubious to debate because that's where the world is going. Even for simple VFR, you're way farther ahead to just go buy a good EFIS and be done with it.

That being said, if you're really stuck on old stuff - I have a box of old steam guages that are for sale cheap! However, if you put it in the plane it'll be worth a whole lot less money and a whole lot less functional than if you'd spent the exact same amount on glass - that's a fact. I won't get into the Space Shuttle metrics but Paul can probably fill us in on that history/progression!

Cheers,
Stein

Stein, as usual, your .02 cents is worth a Lot more. What else do you need to hear folks?
 
The company I fly for has two versions of the same airframe, many planes have the "six pack" and many have a flat panel display (glass). I fly both versions on a regular basis and as automated as the airplane is, I like to hand fly, a lot. I have no problem hand flying the six pack, but with the flat panel airplanes I have a really hard time maintaining my altitude/airspeed accurately. The "tape" displays for these two parameters just aren't as intuitive as the old analog needles.

I'm only working on my wings and I haven't put too much thought into my future instrument panel, but my initial thoughts are to keep the traditional pitot/static instruments and T&B ind, but replace the vacuum instruments with something like the units from Aspen, or something similar. I know I'd be giving up a lot of "gee wiz" stuff, but that's not always bad. My wife's car has all the gee wiz stuff and I don't care to drive it because there are so many buttons I can't figure out how to do something simple (adjust the temperature...) without too much "eyes down" time. In my car, I specifically ordered it without all the "gee wiz". If I need to adjust the temperature, I have three big knobs to control all the functions of the environmental systems .

Just my two cents...

Brad
 
A Voice in the Wilderness...

I think the glass technology and the situational awareness it offers for IFR is amazing but I do wonder why so many people drop over $20K+ on extensive glass for day VFR work? Never could figure that one out unless they have a lot of money burning a hole in their pocket or just must have that cool factor. I find almost universally, people with glass spend way too much time with their head in the cockpit VFR. I hope they don't believe traffic alert systems are infallible.

Got full steam panel in my -10 (maybe the only one in the world it seems!)- total cost around $12000 including radios, GPS, autopilot- all new. It does not have all the capability of full glass obviously but for my day VFR mission it is more than adequate. My experience with electric gyros has been excellent. I like drilling those round holes in the panel too...;) Yep VFR glass can be cheaper than this but most people seem to be spending a lot more, especially for -10s.

I guess it comes down to building the plane you want so I don't have a problem with that but I'll keep my money in investments and buy fuel from the interest off them.:)

The other thing is steam is already obsolete so I don't need to worry about dropping another $30K in 5 years when the glass goes unsupported or is not longer cool enough.
 
Last edited:
Upgrade slowly

Lots of great info in this thread - thanks to all of you who have contributed anecdotal as well as data to the conversation. I'm several years away from my panel in the -10, and don't have lots of experience behind glass or steam, but have 20 years in the IT business.

One key fact about computer systems i.e. glass, is that the failures (typically 65% of them) are directly related to a change. That change is often introduction of new software/firmware versions and in some cases hardware modifications.

Perhaps it would be wise to have a solid test plan that gets executed after any change is made to glass instruments. I haven't seen any discussion on that (perhaps I missed it), so does anyone have a test plan that they execute after updating firmware or map data on their glass?

One thing I have done with computers is to not upgrade the MINUTE it comes out. I wait a week or so, watch the discussion boards, and let others discover the imperfections.
 
When my -9 first flew in 2007 it had a Dynon D100 EFIS and D10 EMS. For backups I had an airspeed and altimeter. For navigation I had a 496 with weather.

Great setup and I really liked it.

However, I'm in the process of replacing that with a Dynon SkyView. The 496 will remain, for now, but the two steam gauges are sitting on a shelf in my basement.

I fly day / night VFR and have enough confidence in the EFIS and my ability to fly the plane in VFR conditions should everything go dark that I'm not worried.

This goes back to the days when I was building and people on this forum would ask me what I would do if I lost my electrical system and my engine gauges go dark. Kind of funny question because if the thing up front keeps making noise, I'm not too worried about getting home.
 
Embrace the technology.....

I agree with Stein and others on the pros for glass. There is a lot of bang for the buck in glass displays. I have a 9 slider. A couple of additional pros are bi-products of my Dynon display. I just had to cut one big rectangular hole in my panel. That big hole makes for great acces for behind the panel when I pull the display out.

I have been flying glass cockpits for half of the 44 years in my flying career. I have come to embrace the technology for its effieiency and reliability. I'll take the glass any day from the standpoint of ease of instrument scan and IFR operations.