S

Sig600

Well Known Member
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Sig600 said:
It's interesting how few people understand that in aviation, you usually only get one chance to be wrong, make a mistake, or misjudge.
Click to expand...

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
 
N941WR said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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
 
Timely thread, thanks

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:rolleyes:

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.
 
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
 
L.Adamson said:
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
Click to expand...

I was referring to Bill's comment on people in things like SR22's that knowingly push boundaries based on things like a BRS chute or their own perceived capabilities, base on their aircraft.
 
Those presentations are, as we say, 50,000' views of things. It's very hard to gain much insight into what is really going on here without seeing the raw data (all those factors they mentioned) and the full stats analysis.

This borders on violating the rule that "correlation does not imply causation".
 
Some one said the glass is more reliable than Steam gauges based on their experience. In my nearly 400 hours on my RV7 with steam and glass I have had 3 instrument failures, all electronic. One electronic Tachometer with an analog display and two different glass panel devices have failed. Both glass failures were display failures that healed themselves over time. None of my steam gauges have failed. I think our new glass devices could use more vibration testing and environmental (temp and humidity) testing of the hardware. Besides hardware failures in the electronics we also have a new reality and that is software failures. How many of these devices have validated software in them? I don't know the answer but maybe a manufacturer could comment on the state of the art in this area of reliability testing. Based on my good experience I would bet that Garmin does both environmental and software testing.
 
Last edited:
Two of my friends bought a used Cirrus 20...

...earlier this year and neither had any previous pilot training.

They both started their training with a really good CFI from Atlanta, who'd come down here and stay for a week, taking turns with each of them. I sat in on some of the ground school which was conducted in our new terminal, a short walk for me.

The complexity of those glass panels is by far more difficult to learn than my Dynons were but with continual practise and the religious use of checklists, they both managed the systems well, with one of them now licensed and the other soloed, continuing this winter.

These guys are both in their upper 40's and one may be fiftyish.

When the training is done properly, it sure is a pleasure using all of the available info.

Best,
 
Report doesn't give any reasons, just tries to make a correlation without facts. Do glass panel equipped planes get more heavily utilized? Do they tend to fly more real IFR? Are these panels located in more high performing aircraft?. What was the level of pilot experience in both control groups?, etc.
 
Experience, not just Learning

pierre smith said:
...earlier this year and neither had any previous pilot training.

They both started their training with a really good CFI from Atlanta, who'd come down here and stay for a week, taking turns with each of them. I sat in on some of the ground school which was conducted in our new terminal, a short walk for me.

The complexity of those glass panels is by far more difficult to learn than my Dynons were but with continual practise and the religious use of checklists, they both managed the systems well, with one of them now licensed and the other soloed, continuing this winter.

These guys are both in their upper 40's and one may be fiftyish.

When the training is done properly, it sure is a pleasure using all of the available info.

Best,
Click to expand...

It sounds like these two are doing the right thing in getting structured training in the specific aircraft and equipment that they will use - very much in the Military or Ab Initio Airline style of training used by some overseas carriers. All well and good. When they finish their courses, they will likely know much more about their aircraft than the person who picks up the systems "on the fly".

Yet will they be safer? I will submit a hypothesis that they could very likely be the exact type person who goes out and has an accident because what they will NOT have is experience. They have stared at that weather scenario a hundred times and seen if it is harmless vapor or the start if an icy mess. they haven't seen how a cold front can stall out when it hits the coast , and the predicted clearing for their destination turns in to low, low IFR that they aren't truly ready to handle.

Unfortunately, this is all to close to the stereotypical "Doctors in Bonanzas" scenario that is a shorthand description for someone with more money than experience. We can teach procedures, but we can't teach experience. You have to go get experience, but you have to be deliberately seeking it out as you go.

No judgment at all on your specific people Pierre, they could be outstanding "experience seekers", and if so, they will do well. But if they figure that they have good equipment and good training, so they are good to go....then they could add to the NTSB database.

Paul
 
Good & useful discussion. One of the treats of visiting this forum is how it expands beyond building RV's and into other thoughtful discussions.

There are multiple comments above endorsing seeking transition training, as e.g. Paul's: "You can't jump in and go (safely) without an educated transition..." I see no evidence of structured & experience-based training on this in my area - a 'niche market' for the CFI looking for more business, perhaps - so where does one get this for the 'basic' Dynon EFIS most folks seem to now be using? (If the answer is 'your local flight school', my response would be to repeat the 'structured, experience-based' part of the Q.) Is 'self-instruction' with a fair dose of self-discipline enough?

Jack
 
Jack Tyler said:
Good & useful discussion. One of the treats of visiting this forum is how it expands beyond building RV's and into other thoughtful discussions.

There are multiple comments above endorsing seeking transition training, as e.g. Paul's: "You can't jump in and go (safely) without an educated transition..." I see no evidence of structured & experience-based training on this in my area - a 'niche market' for the CFI looking for more business, perhaps - so where does one get this for the 'basic' Dynon EFIS most folks seem to now be using? (If the answer is 'your local flight school', my response would be to repeat the 'structured, experience-based' part of the Q.) Is 'self-instruction' with a fair dose of self-discipline enough?

Jack
Click to expand...

This is a great question. There are instructors in my area who work with the Garmin or Avidyne systems, but none who can provide training in Dynon, GRT, AFS, MGL, etc. Even if they somehow did know these systems the installation is different in every homebuilt - some with one screen, some with five, often more than one brand in the panel, different autopilot setups, different degrees of integration, etc.

It seems to me that "training" must mean something very different for homebuilt glass panels than for factory setups. Basically the owner/pilot has little choice but to self-train? Or, can a generalized training curriculum be developed that is flexible enough to be used with a variety of different systems?
 
Flybuddy2 said:
Report doesn't give any reasons, just tries to make a correlation without facts. Do glass panel equipped planes get more heavily utilized? Do they tend to fly more real IFR? Are these panels located in more high performing aircraft?. What was the level of pilot experience in both control groups?, etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts as well. I'm curious if the data was adjusted to account for these things. Every Piper Cub, Aeronca, Luscombe, etc. technically has steam gauges as well but those guys aren't (or shouldn't be) flying off into IMC.
 
RV7AV8R said:
Some one said the glass is more reliable than Steam gauges based on their experience. In my nearly 400 hours on my RV7 with steam and glass I have had 3 instrument failures, all electronic. One electronic Tachometer with an analog display and two different glass panel devices have failed. Both glass failures were display failures that healed themselves over time. None of my steam gauges have failed. I think our new glass devices could use more vibration testing and environmental (temp and humidity) testing of the hardware. Besides hardware failures in the electronics we also have a new reality and that is software failures. How many of these devices have validated software in them? I don't know the answer but maybe a manufacturer could comment on the state of the art in this area of reliability testing. Based on my good experience I would bet that Garmin does both environmental and software testing.
Click to expand...

(Rats...lost my post and have to retype it all...grrr)...

A few comments.

Anecdotal evidence is not much help...for every statement about never having had a steam gauge fail, I or others could counter with "well, I have" (and yes, I have). However, your comments on testing bear investigation.

Garmin and others who sell TSO'd devices do, in fact, certify them to certain standards, including environmental. They also write software against DO-178 (and perhaps others). On the experimental side, well...perhaps that's worth digging into. Does Dynon follow DO-178? DO-160? etc.? AFS? GRT? Perhaps someone could put together a comparison matrix of relevant standards and requirements, and gather the info from the companies, so we can see whose equipment is being designed/built to higher specs/tolerances?

If you want to discuss software "failures", though...that's a whole new ballgame. Software doesn't "fail". It does precisely what it was coded to do. So the issue becomes one of verification and validation of requirements, design, implementation, test, integration and deployment/maintenance. In effect, software failures are, by and large, more *system* problems. (Yes, I know, someone can code something incorrectly, etc....I'm talking about things like architectural and algorithmic issues).

This is a rich field, and we've discussed this in a few other threads. If you're interested in safety-critical software, there are quite a few books, conferences, etc., that deal with this.

My view, as a software systems engineer, is that software cannot be analyzed (hazard analysis, FTA, FMECA, etc.), in isolation, and that it must be done as *part of* the system in which it resides and which it controls.

(You also have to have an agreement on language..."verification" and "validation" mean two different things, and they are quite different, for example).
 
Be safe

I just read that the NTSB does not report ?accidents? unless they are fatal or had significant damage. So there are many ground loops or wheels up landings that are not recorded as accidents by the NTSB. The reason I mention this, is that the planes that have glass may be the faster type that make surviving an accident less likely. I wonder how many steam gauge equipped planes have had accidents that were not fatal only due to the slower speed they were flying (crashing).

Even though I am not steam gauge programed, (can?t even read a non-digital watch without thought) I did do some transition training to glass when I transitioned to the RV.

If you want to help transition yourself, some EFIS systems have a playback ability where you can download a sample flight and watch it in your plane. This helps to familiarize you with what is happening in a safe environment. Also, Paul and others have YouTube videos that can help familiarize you with the data displayed. At the very least I think everyone should sit in the plane on the ground and work through scenarios with the glass. I guess my point is that we should be familiar with our tools.

Playing with the glass while flying is like driving while talking on the cell phone. It can be done, but is not the safest thing to do. Especially by a low time driver.

As I have been told many times?. When all else fails, fly the plane.

Just my thoughts.
 
From Alan: "Basically the owner/pilot has little choice but to self-train? Or, can a generalized training curriculum be developed that is flexible enough to be used with a variety of different systems?"

Why isn't this to be expected from a company like Dynon, who is selling in meaningful volume to this part of the pilot community? Seems like good feedback for us to be giving to reps and booths at the shows we attend this year. Or do they already have something that could be modified & would fit this bill if shared with their customers?

Jack
 
Six packs have simplicity and maybe a bit of a undeserved perception for reliability.
I have a better perception of reality with steam because I am use to those spinning dials. Something about my brain enables me to glance at a dial face and perceive more about what is really going on not as absolute digital values to compute in my head, but as general trends and values.
There is a lot to be said for that. If not, the EFIS manufactures wouldn't have so many displays that mimic steam.


I doubt there are many bad choices for an EFIS these days. The market is so small it is somewhat self cleaning thanks to forums such as this one so I am going with glass and a single thought towards training:

Unfamiliar dense EFIS displays can be a nightmare.
Familiar cohesive EFIS displays can be a dream.


To me the difference between the two is more likely training and practice than manufacture.
 
Flying Scotsman said:
Garmin and others who sell TSO'd devices do, in fact, certify them to certain standards, including environmental. They also write software against DO-178 (and perhaps others). On the experimental side, well...perhaps that's worth digging into. Does Dynon follow DO-178? DO-160? etc.? AFS? GRT? Perhaps someone could put together a comparison matrix of relevant standards and requirements, and gather the info from the companies, so we can see whose equipment is being designed/built to higher specs/tolerances?

If you want to discuss software "failures", though...that's a whole new ballgame. Software doesn't "fail". It does precisely what it was coded to do. So the issue becomes one of verification and validation of requirements, design, implementation, test, integration and deployment/maintenance. In effect, software failures are, by and large, more *system* problems. (Yes, I know, someone can code something incorrectly, etc....I'm talking about things like architectural and algorithmic issues).

QUOTE]
Thanks for you comments Steve. I am an EE and made my comments because I think non-EE and non-software type builders are too trusting in the fancy electronic tools we have and love. I love them as much as anyone but it is important to know they can and do fail sometimes. Temperature changes combined with high humidity can drive electronic gadgets nuts when condensation shorts things out inside the device. Throw on top of that software "issues" of all types and it makes me cautious. I would always try to have redundant systems with differing technology to maximize a safe flight, especially IFR flights.
Click to expand...
 
Software Failures

Software based systems do exactly what the software tells it to but the software is stored in memory and the memory can fail. One bit changing in a RAM can drive a system to Never Never land. As memory chips get more dense and lower power this actually gets easier to occur. What can cause memory to fail? Believe it or not cosmic rays can change memory cells, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_error for a general discussion. The best way to protect against this type of failure is for the sytem to monitor for changes and have error correcting software. If you are going to fly IFR and depend on Glass ask your vendor if they have error correcting software desiged to detect random, unexplained memory changes and does it have the means to correct the error and continue to perform? This isn't just theory, in my experience with implanted medical devices it has happened. I don't want to scare anyone with a pacemaker or defibrillator today because this was discovered decades ago and current models have error correcting software.
 
Error detection and correction

Error detection and correction needs to be built into the hardware as well, or it won't be too useful. I believe the best strategy is to not trust any single technical component since even with the best error detection and correction, the software will have bugs.
 
RV7AV8R said:
Software based systems do exactly what the software tells it to but the software is stored in memory and the memory can fail. One bit changing in a RAM can drive a system to Never Never land. As memory chips get more dense and lower power this actually gets easier to occur. What can cause memory to fail? Believe it or not cosmic rays can change memory cells, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_error for a general discussion. The best way to protect against this type of failure is for the sytem to monitor for changes and have error correcting software. If you are going to fly IFR and depend on Glass ask your vendor if they have error correcting software desiged to detect random, unexplained memory changes and does it have the means to correct the error and continue to perform? This isn't just theory, in my experience with implanted medical devices it has happened. I don't want to scare anyone with a pacemaker or defibrillator today because this was discovered decades ago and current models have error correcting software.
Click to expand...

Lots of ways to address the issue of what we term Single Event Effects (SEEs) including Single Event Upsets, Single Event Latchups, gate ruptures, etc. Error Detection and Correction (EDAC) memory has been around for quite a while now, and decent systems should be doing regular memory scrubbing (often consisting of simply reading the entire memory to force a refresh and, if necessary, error correction). Multiple copies of code can mitigate some aspects of SEEs, as well. Shielding works in some environments, but Galactic Cosmic Radiation cannot be shielded. Memory Management Units can mark blocks of memory as bad and "rewire" the system to use good memory blocks. Lots of solutions...I wouldn't worry too much about these sorts of problems for aviation devices.

We're getting ready to send some avionics into one of the harshest radiation environments in the solar system, so this is a topic we deal with extensively from the software aspect.
 
BTW, I was just talking about static wicks with someone...how come nobody puts 'em on RVs? But all the Pipers I've flown (IIRC) have had them, and a few Cessnas, as well?
 
I mean no disrespect to the older pilots on this forum but I do wonder what factor age has in this statistic.

I grew up with electronics all around me and have little problems figuring stuff out quickly. In fact I have been playing with microcontroller programming in my spare time, so I have a basic understand as to how the glass panels work. My sons are even faster than I am. I can give my kid my cell phone and in 10 minutes he has the entire deal figured out.

In contrast I've shown my fancy panel to a number of older pilots I know and they just blow off my fancy stuff as wizardry that they could never understand. These are the same guys that struggle with their handheld GPS.

Some of them have told me that I was nuts to trust electronics, and so far I have resisted the urge to tell them that I think they are nuts to trust a 50 year old guage powered by a vacuum pump.

Here is my point. With the average age of pilots getting older and older, I wonder how much this glass stuff is a generational gap that will eventually normalize again.
 
Hi Matt..

I guess you could consider me one of the "older" pilots at 65, nearing 66. A lot of the generational gap, IMO, has more to do with attitude than anything else, and ten years ago, a lot of us 'older' guys had to start from scratch with our swath-guidance GPS's, which were no where near as operator-friendly as all these modern 430's and 496/696 stuff.

Most of my friends are parallel in age and older but we all just hunkered down and now have learned all about operating our EFIS's, Satloc guidance systems and now along comes our iPads!!:)

I remember too well the old VOR's and Tacans from the '60's and we have so much better and more reliable equipment in our homebuilts than most gen-av airplanes. I've had Citation pilots ooh and aaah over my two Dynon's and 496 with wx, plus a 430W that he wished he had!

Best,
 
pierre smith said:
I guess you could consider me one of the "older" pilots at 65, nearing 66. A lot of the generational gap, IMO, has more to do with attitude than anything else, and ten years ago, a lot of us 'older' guys had to start from scratch with our swath-guidance GPS's, which were no where near as operator-friendly as all these modern 430's and 496/696 stuff.

Most of my friends are parallel in age and older but we all just hunkered down and now have learned all about operating our EFIS's, Satloc guidance systems and now along comes our iPads!!:)

I remember too well the old VOR's and Tacans from the '60's and we have so much better and more reliable equipment in our homebuilts than most gen-av airplanes. I've had Citation pilots ooh and aaah over my two Dynon's and 496 with wx, plus a 430W that he wished he had!
Click to expand...

So......how come I still run across many pilots and some instructors.......who are bent on the notion that "old school" navigation is a required skill for anyone piloting an aircraft. They use all the excuses in the world, such as mass failing of GPS;... knowing where we're going, but not where we are, etc, etc,.

When I say otherwise, I get comments that I'm just not proficient in VOR navigation! Well, I'm probably not...........as I haven't used it for years, and don't much care to do so. I prefer GPS, my XM weather, and would like SV. Might have a hard time with I-Pads though, and can't text at all.

L.Adamson
 
I agree with them in some ways...

...like being able to fly pilotage if everything goes blank. That's not likely to happen if you have a X96 with its own battery backup though.

I made the previous post with the assumption that we don't let our ability to fly pilotage lapse just because we have all these cool doodads:)

That said, a lot of 'old school' pilots and CFI's won't be won over....their loss.

Best,
 
I made the previous post with the assumption that we don't let our ability to fly pilotage lapse just because we have all these cool doodads:)
Click to expand...

As to myself, I'll aways pre-plan a route, that I haven't previously used.......with a sectional and online flight planner. This will be printed out, and carried along with the sectional on my kneeboard. I won't be instantly lost, if something should actually happen to the GPS. In fact, I'll probably have a better idea of exact location, than if just using VOR nav.

And due to my Garmin 696, I'll plan flights, that may be somewhat more direct than hop scotching to VORs. Just depends where. Yet, an "old school" instructor suggested that I should be triangulating VORs for my waypoints.....and went on to suggest, that I just don't feel comfortable with the VOR system.........as the reason for not doing so. To me, my GPS IS NOT a backup to the VOR nav system. It's a far greater piece of navigation equipment.....than the VOR setup could have ever hoped to be.

L.Adamson -- RV6A
 
These are a couple of quotes from my Internet based archives. From a flight instructor replying to a student pilot forum. This dates from the latter part of 2004. Perhaps he's changed his tune........but I doubt it.

"So, call me old fashioned, out of step with "today's flying", or stuck in the past. Whatever. My students can find their way around the country without the use of toys. I sleep well at night knowing I'm not doing them a disservice by shortcutting their training. I don't have to worry that they'll be lost if the next plane they fly doesn't come equipped with the latest, greatest gadget. Someday the airspace may truly revolve around GPS, and when that happens I'll adjust my training. However, *today* GPS is nothing more than a nice extra. Learn the basics well, and they'll keep you safe. Rely on extras, and you'd better hope they never fail because you'll have nothing to fall back on. "

"GPS *is* a toy, albeit a very pretty and seductive one. VOR is our system."

L.Adamson
 
L.Adamson said:
These are a couple of quotes from my Internet based archives. From a flight instructor replying to a student pilot forum. This dates from the latter part of 2004. Perhaps he's changed his tune........but I doubt it.

"So, call me old fashioned, out of step with "today's flying", or stuck in the past. Whatever. My students can find their way around the country without the use of toys. I sleep well at night knowing I'm not doing them a disservice by shortcutting their training. I don't have to worry that they'll be lost if the next plane they fly doesn't come equipped with the latest, greatest gadget. Someday the airspace may truly revolve around GPS, and when that happens I'll adjust my training. However, *today* GPS is nothing more than a nice extra. Learn the basics well, and they'll keep you safe. Rely on extras, and you'd better hope they never fail because you'll have nothing to fall back on. "

"GPS *is* a toy, albeit a very pretty and seductive one. VOR is our system."

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

This reminds me of something that a friend of mine who ran our IT division said one time, after they had rolled out a new business software system. "
Whatever the previous 'thing' was will always be better, in some peoples' minds."

By that, he meant that because the new system wasn't *perfect* or didn't do everything that some users thought it should do, they viewed it as worse than the previous system. I remember complaints from some people many years ago when we went to a completely electronic timekeeping system...they thought the "old system" was far superior. Never mind that the "old system" meant writing down on a paper card, every week, every account to which you charged and the number of hours worked, walking them to your secretary (sometimes in a different building), who would then collect all of them and walk them to yet another building, where they were entered into a system by keypunch operators who hopefully didn't make a mistake, and then once a quarter you would get a printout of your charges, which you had to review and then confirm were correct, again manually. All of this versus choosing the accounts from a drop-down list and entering the hours into an on-line tool, clicking "Approve" and being done. But the old, paper system was, to some people "superior". Huh?

So right now, at this point in time, to some people GPS is "new" and therefore a "toy" or not as robust or powerful or whatever, as the "old" system (VORs or, if they're not in the dark ages, LORAN). No doubt, these are the same people who thought that if you weren't a pro at 4-course ranges and lighted airways, you were a crappy pilot, and the "new" VORs and DMEs were "toys". And before them...well, you get the idea.

GPS is many things, but a toy it most certainly is not (assuming we're talking real, honest-to-goodness aviation or equivalent GPS receivers, and not cheap-o handhelds that you buy at Big 5 or K-mart).

Here's a question...which were unavailable a higher percentage of time...VORs or GPS satellites? I honestly don't know the answer, but I've seen plenty of "VOR OTS" NOTAMs, while rarely seeing a "GPS SAT OTS" :)
 
lots of short comments

This is a great thread - I find I have so many thoughts I want to add (but also want to insure everyone on the board understand I'm not expert) ...

I agree with the posts that say "training" is a bit part of it. Student pilots, new drivers, and the like are taught to have backup plans and "outs". Regardless of the systems in your plan, this does not change.

Pilots need to know their limits. I am an instrument rated pilot but I don't fly IMC any more. I fly mostly solo time and seldom get the opportunity to practice, practice, practice, so I changed my personal limits and don't fly when the weather could violate those limits.

Part of my "day job" is as a user experience designer - yes, I'm one of those guys that designs what you see when you use software, don't shoot me. To be honest, I spend 75% of my time trying to explain why we should not overload the user experience.

A great example of simplifying the user experience can be seen in race cars. The drivers need to take in a lot of engine information in a fraction of a second. The solution is to rotate all of the gauges so that strait up is good / everything else means something wrong. It takes no time to interpret the information.

I think some of the "glass" today could use a strong dose of critical review. I've been looking to add some upgrades to my steam gauge panel. I've had to throw out everything that overlays information on a sectional - it just takes too much time to interpret. My personal taste run more to PFDs and vector GPSs that let me clearly see airspace.

My last thought is "lies, dam lies, and statistics". The original report at the head of this thread does have the raw data behind the conclusions so we really don't know what influences the conclusion. What is great is that the report has all of us thinking and talking about betting better pilots, smarter pilots, and safer pilots. So it really does not matter what the report says. It only matters what we've done.

Those are my take aways. What I really appreciate about this forum is all of the individual input. Thanks for the discussion and for making me think about my flying and my safety.
 
L.Adamson said:
"GPS *is* a toy, albeit a very pretty and seductive one. VOR is our system."

L.Adamson
Click to expand...


Very interesting thought. Is that really true these days ?
In my humble opinion I think of the GPS as the "tool" and VOR as the toy - simply because VOR feels like a toy. It's interesting and fun to fly VOR, tune to two stations, get your radials, plot your position etc. Feels like real navigation, one up on the sextant - which of course is the ultimate toy (I used one to get my Yacht Master certificate but since then it's GPS, GPS, GPS...).
The comment on servicability of VOR stations is quite true - in particular in some less "civilized" or remote areas. Of course we have not yet seen any major failure of GPS and perhaps never will - or who knows, perhaps we will one day and we get back to using dead reckoning and a compass.
Until that day, GPS is my tool and VOR (and everything else) is a toy for me.

Rainier
 
]Until that day, GPS is my tool and VOR (and everything else) is a toy for me.
Click to expand...

Living in a mountainous area............I have a real interest in CFIT accidents. I'll call it an interest instead of hobby because of the fatalities that are usually involved.

On numerous flights across areas, where one of these accidents occurred, I've set up my terrain database moving map GPSs.....Garmin 296, 496, and now the 696..........for a replay of a portion of the accident route & altitude. Without doubt, these new "moving map/ big picture" GPSs would have made all the difference in the world; whether the accident was the cause of the pilot, a first officer, a navigator, corrupt or out of service radio signal......in addition to darkness or IMC weather conditions. 24+ satellites orbiting the earth are not supporting "toys" by any means.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.