Glass cockpit vs steam gauges

[RotorAndWing]

Operationally, what is the difference between non SVT glass and 'steam gauges'? You still have to take multiple abstract information inputs and interpret them into a situational awareness picture, something the three pilots in the front of AF447 failed to be able to do. SVT it's displayed in an intuitive 3D picture.

Since you have very limited experience with any of it I can see your confusion.

 

[Henning]

Since you have very limited experience with any of it I can see your confusion.

Ok, how much time do you have with SVT?

 

[kyleb]

steam - because it's less expensive than glass.

My fear with glass panels isn't the up-front cost. It is the recurring cost when the stuff becomes unsupportable so you have to start cutting metal and pulling wires to install the replacement.

Steam gauges don't have that problem. You replace the brand A ASI with brand B and the new one fits right in...

 

[poadeleted20]

For training - Steam. Preferably without GPS until after the ability to paint the moving map in your head is learned.

But, for flying - I prefer glass. A large part of piloting is making decisions, and the glass generally gives you more information to make better informed decisions with.

I disagree strongly with this philosophy. You do not want the laws of primacy and exercise working against you when you're making your first post-training approach to minimums. If you're going to fly glass, train on glass. If you're going to fly legacy 6-pack, train on that.

"You fight the way you train." - BGen Steve Ritchey, USAFR (ret)
"...so train the way you want to fight. - CAPT "Duke" Cunningham, USN (ret)

 

[docmirror]

Started out with steam, upgraded the plane with a Dynon EFIS and EMS, kept the steam altimeter, VSI, airspeed and inclinometer. My wife and I love flying with the Dynon. The ability to reconfigure the displays in flight for whichever of us has the airplane is very cool.

I have an EXP coming, and in a few years, this is the way I'll be going. I like the MGL products, but may go with one of the others. I want to let the market shake out a bit, don't want to get caught with a system that's not supported for at least 5 ish years.

 

[LDJones]

I've done steam to glass transitions, but haven't had an all-glass student try transitioning to steam. I'm guessing that would be a much bigger challenge than going the other way. I would be interested in hearing others experience.

 

[Marauder]

I have been flying for 25 years, 22 of it in the same steam gauge Mooney with dual Nav/Coms, dual ILS CDIs, ADF and even a LORAN to boot. My closest thing to "glass" was a portable GPS that I updated every few years. Last December I finally upgraded to glass (Aspen 2000) and a WAAS GPS.

IMHO the improvement in situational awareness and the redundancy was well worth it. For those who say an electrical failure will disable a glass cockpit, try flying an ILS to mins when that same electrical failure hits your electric driven Nav radios and CDI. My Aspens are capable of full reversion and both have battery back-ups. They even can maintain the GPS flight plan information in case it goes down. I like my odds better today.

I still have a vacuum AI and elected to keep my ASI and altimeter because I do like redundancy. My only regret is that I waited so long...

 

[txflyer]

We don't want glass in a VFR bush plane, but you cannot take away my 430W driving the GPSS S-TEC 30. No way.

I'm not giving up my nap time.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Ok, how much time do you have with SVT?

I've attended various training and seminars at the MMAC in OKC on TAA (Technically Advanced Aircraft) and we flew various simulators equipped with different levels of simulation including SVT.

Also went out to Bell Helicopter in Dallas where they had a helicopter equipped with a system and flew that one as part of an evaluation.

 

[Henning]

I've attended various training and seminars at the MMAC in OKC on TAA (Technically Advanced Aircraft) and we flew various simulators equipped with different levels of simulation including SVT.

Also went out to Bell Helicopter in Dallas where they had a helicopter equipped with a system and flew that one as part of an evaluation.

So, you have less time with it than I do....

 

[ferrari-tech]

i feel as though students do not learn as much if they had glass training. its all about fundamentals and i think you get the best learning experience from steam gauges.

This is one of the two things I often hear repeated in the Glass vs Steam debate that I just don't get.

Last time I checked, the yoke, throttle, rudder pedals and windows are in the same place in both planes, they all perform the same function, if you are distracted by the glass its not the airplanes fault.

I have been learning in both, but only fly the steam when the G1000 is unavailable.


The other is cost, in my area its about a $20-30 per hour difference in cost between similar aircraft with different avionics.

So if I fly 3 hours a day im looking at a max $90 difference...who the hell gets into flying only to do it on the cheap..

Of course I hear the old " well over time you will spend 10's of thousands more"...and what would I do with all the extra money I save ? drugs, alcohol and women, and then just waste the rest I guess...

Anyone who tries to save money flying will eventually skimp on safety, I know a few pilot/plane owners like that, and I don't fly with them (they all fly steam gauge planes BTW)

 

[denverpilot]

Anyone who tries to save money flying will eventually skimp on safety, I know a few pilot/plane owners like that, and I don't fly with them (they all fly steam gauge planes BTW)

This is an interesting statement. Do glass ships crash less than steam gauge ships? Or when you say "safety" do you mean the pilots of steam gauge aircraft do things that are less safe than their glass counterparts? I'd love to see your numbers on this.

 

[HeliNomad]

Once you go glass... : )

 

[Ted]

I think you hit the nail on the head, Douglas. The glass is going to be more expensive for the owner over the long term.

There is some extra cost associated with the equipment, but there's also cost savings. GPS saves you money (D->), engine monitors save you money (less engine MX + LOP), etc.

But keep in mind that cars are more expensive, too, and you get a lot of new features with them today vs. 40 years ago.

 

[Bill]

Compare that to steam gauges where there's not been much for meaningful changes in technology since the advent of the HSI and blue over brown AIs. They still break in the same old way, which is typically dying a slow death that allows pilots to continue limping along with them because "Egh, they're not that bad." Not that great, and then pilots will typically just rebuild the same one and keep on flying. No wonder the fleet is still filled with old technology.

I've never tried glass, so I don't know what I'm missing. That said, I drive a 12yr old pickup. I could buy a brand new one, but I see no reason why when the old one is still 100% reliable and servicable. Likewise I expect to sit behind my 6-pack for a long time to come.

 

[Bob Noel]

My fear with glass panels isn't the up-front cost. It is the recurring cost when the stuff becomes unsupportable so you have to start cutting metal and pulling wires to install the replacement.

Steam gauges don't have that problem. You replace the brand A ASI with brand B and the new one fits right in...

Kind of like the drug dealers... the first hit is free, they make the real money on future costs.

 

[poadeleted20]

So, you have less time with it than I do....

Having taken a few people through their IR and instrument refresher training in DA40's and other glass panel aircraft with SVT (including G1000, G500, and Avidyne), I suspect I have more time in flight with SVT than both of you put together. My conclusion is that it's not that big a deal in light aircraft. Turning off the SVT doesn't change that much for instrument flying. Yes, it's nice, and can be a help when looking for the runway at the bottom of an instrument approach in near-minimums weather, and avoiding rocks if you're foolishly poking around down low VFR in marginal weather (i.e., scud-running), but it's not a game-changer. In fact, I find its capabilities a bit scary, as they may entice the unwise to try doing dumb things like busting mins or scud-running in the hills -- a modern version of Scylla and Charybdis.

 

[Alexb2000]

Is it time for the glass vs. steam discussion again.... Its been almost 2 months, I guess so.

SVT doesn't add any value flying large airport to large airport at altitudes well above any terrain over the flat lands.

It does add a lot of value when flying at night or IMC near terrain. Look at the CFIT Superstition Mountain crash in 2011. 100% avoidable with SVT.

Very useful when landing at a VFR only airport at night.

Very useful in a forced landing scenario at night or IMC.

As far as cost, would that matter to the CFIT victims if they had it to do over?

IMO: If you do the kind of flying that can be made safer with SVT, get it.

 

[docmirror]

In fact, I find its capabilities a bit scary, as they may entice the unwise to try doing dumb things like busting mins or scud-running in the hills -- a modern version of Scylla and Charybdis.

I like to see Greek mythology used as metaphor, but you missed slightly. The benefits of TAA, and the way you described them would much more accurately fit the tales of the Sirens who would chant passing sailors with a song of beauty, only to find the land nearby strewn with rocks that would wreck the boats. In fact, the simile is almost too accurate. However, I can't see the TAA glass cockpit as having two separate but equally dangerous facets which a sailor can't escape; Literally it would be the 'rock and a hard place' statement, where busting mins, and scud running are two disparate but equally unavoidable disasters. Both can and are avoided, but the tale of the Sirens is what your really meant as the technology can lure the sailor(pilot) into an otherwise dangerous coastline(CFIT).

but nice work anyway.

<edited for grammar, but still not perfect, grrrrrr>

 

[ferrari-tech]

This is an interesting statement. Do glass ships crash less than steam gauge ships? Or when you say "safety" do you mean the pilots of steam gauge aircraft do things that are less safe than their glass counterparts? I'd love to see your numbers on this.

I obviously haven't performed a detailed study with a control group, but I have a couple of dozen friends with aircraft, everything from citations down to 150's.

I just noticed that the owner's who's primary concern is the cost, or lack there of, ie buy the cheapest fuel they can find, delay maint as long as they can, don't clean the planes, find the cheapest mechanics and used parts where posible etc etc are the last to update there avionics.

Of course I have many friends with steam gauges who's planes are immaculate.

If you're cheap your cheap, the people who don't spend money on their planes also don't want to spend money on their cars....

I was just making the point anyone flying for recreation that is worried about $20 an hour for anything should probably find another hobby.

 

[MAKG1]

Wow, that's assumptions built on assumptions.

A dirty plane is unsightly, not unsafe. Old avionics are not unsafe unless used in an unsafe manner. Glass can be used in an unsafe manner as well. Cheap fuel is the same as expensive fuel -- it comes from the same suppliers and is manufactured to the same standards; the difference is location, service and markup. Bad mechanics are MORE expensive than good ones, because it takes them multiple tries and more time to diagnose successfully. Some maintenance can be safely deferred, some can't. Is it really unsafe to not treat the leather seats?

You're trying to justify your choice in terms of safety. There are a few risks with training in glass, but they are probably not substantial with a careful instructor. Your choice is not justifiable in those terms. You do it because you like it. That should be enough; no rationalization in terms of non-existent VFR primary training safety should be necessary.

With the advent of glass, the GA fatality rate is FLAT, not declining. It makes no difference.

 

[Ted]

I've never tried glass, so I don't know what I'm missing. That said, I drive a 12yr old pickup. I could buy a brand new one, but I see no reason why when the old one is still 100% reliable and servicable. Likewise I expect to sit behind my 6-pack for a long time to come.

And I also drive a 20 year old car and like it that way. But if I bought a newer car it would get better mileage, leak less oil, and probably also have a couple of other safety features, while likely being faster.

I don't like new cars, but I do like glass.

 

[Frank]

This is one of the two things I often hear repeated in the Glass vs Steam debate that I just don't get.

Last time I checked, the yoke, throttle, rudder pedals and windows are in the same place in both planes, they all perform the same function, if you are distracted by the glass its not the airplanes fault.

I have been learning in both, but only fly the steam when the G1000 is unavailable.


The other is cost, in my area its about a $20-30 per hour difference in cost between similar aircraft with different avionics.

So if I fly 3 hours a day im looking at a max $90 difference...who the hell gets into flying only to do it on the cheap..

Of course I hear the old " well over time you will spend 10's of thousands more"...and what would I do with all the extra money I save ? drugs, alcohol and women, and then just waste the rest I guess...

Anyone who tries to save money flying will eventually skimp on safety, I know a few pilot/plane owners like that, and I don't fly with them (they all fly steam gauge planes BTW)

I think a wise owner will not overbuy. It would be unwise to spend money for glitzy instruments and not have enough reserve to make sure that all other useful maintenance is done. Anyone who does not recognize the economics of aviation and who does not try to minimize unnecessary costs will either fly an unsafe airplane or contribute to the stock of unairworthy aircraft sitting on ramps and in hangars waiting for the owner to get sufficient money to restore the aircraft to airworthiness. I think it is better to fly an airworthy aircraft with steam gauges than to fly an unairworthy aircraft with the latest glass panel

 

[poadeleted20]

I like to see Greek mythology used as metaphor, but you missed slightly. The benefits of TAA, and the way you described them

I was speaking specifically of SVT, which is a part of some (many?) TAA's, but not all. I have not seen the same level of response to the Siren song with plain TAA's (say, a GNS530 with a good autopilot) as I have with SVT added (G1000 with all the bells and whistles).

 

[Henning]

So the argument is, "Don't get SVT because it's so good, you may want to do something stupid"?

 

[docmirror]

I was speaking specifically of SVT, which is a part of some (many?) TAA's, but not all. I have not seen the same level of response to the Siren song with plain TAA's as I have with SVT added.

That's fine, I was just critiquing your Greek simile, but I understand that the SVT is more appropriately the Siren song leading to the rocky shoals.

Just for giggles: http://www.summitpost.org/charybdis/151458

 

[denverpilot]

Wow, that's assumptions built on assumptions.

A dirty plane is unsightly, not unsafe. Old avionics are not unsafe unless used in an unsafe manner. Glass can be used in an unsafe manner as well. Cheap fuel is the same as expensive fuel -- it comes from the same suppliers and is manufactured to the same standards; the difference is location, service and markup. Bad mechanics are MORE expensive than good ones, because it takes them multiple tries and more time to diagnose successfully. Some maintenance can be safely deferred, some can't. Is it really unsafe to not treat the leather seats?

You're trying to justify your choice in terms of safety. There are a few risks with training in glass, but they are probably not substantial with a careful instructor. Your choice is not justifiable in those terms. You do it because you like it. That should be enough; no rationalization in terms of non-existent VFR primary training safety should be necessary.

With the advent of glass, the GA fatality rate is FLAT, not declining. It makes no difference.

That covers my reply.

The glass panel didn't save the guy who picked a bad weather day here this week from his tail strike. His attitude afterward was "never trust a Tower for wind information", stated like it wasn't his fault.

Think if he buys some more glass it'll fix that attitude problem?

(I'm sure some of his buddies have told him to reevaluate that ridiculous statement made in the heat of his embarrassment by now.)

A hard look at accident types doesn't seem to show that many that a G1000 panel can save a careless or (even momentarily) inattentive pilot from bending the airplane.

(I've always thought a panel as sophisticated as the G1000 should help with giving exact book numbers for things like runway required, and various other E6B type planning features. Show when the aircraft is back below landing weight after departing at MGTOW, etc. The Cessna variant at least does a better job of throwing a minor giddy fit in low fuel conditions, which still is WAY up the list of "Stupid Pilot Tricks" that lead to accidents every year. And forgive me if it does more than I think it does, I have a whopping .4 in a G1000 equipped T182T. I've also read Max's book on it. Fairly unimpressive in some respects, utterly nifty in others.)

 

[Henning]

That covers my reply.

The glass panel didn't save the guy who picked a bad weather day here this week from his tail strike. His attitude afterward was "never trust a Tower for wind information", stated like it wasn't his fault.

Think if he buys some more glass it'll fix that attitude problem?

(I'm sure some of his buddies have told him to reevaluate that ridiculous statement made in the heat of his embarrassment by now.)

A hard look at accident types doesn't seem to show that many that a G1000 panel can save a careless or (even momentarily) inattentive pilot from bending the airplane.

(I've always thought a panel as sophisticated as the G1000 should help with giving exact book numbers for things like runway required, and various other E6B type planning features. Show when the aircraft is back below landing weight after departing at MGTOW, etc. The Cessna variant at least does a better job of throwing a minor giddy fit in low fuel conditions, which still is WAY up the list of "Stupid Pilot Tricks" that lead to accidents every year. And forgive me if it does more than I think it does, I have a whopping .4 in a G1000 equipped T182T. I've also read Max's book on it. Fairly unimpressive in some respects, utterly nifty in others.)

Hmmm... My G-500 tells me the wind right there, I don't have to believe the controller.

 

[Frank]

I think a good GPS or glass panel could improve safety by reducing the workload in navigating complex airspace. For example, in departing FME to the southeast, one has to file SFRA flight plans and activate them, stay below Class B, avoid the traffic pattern at KANP, and avoid TFRs around the USNA stadium when there are football games. One may also have VIP TFRs or something for a boat show. That places a premium on exact navigation. While you are trying to avoid being busted for something or shot down, it is easy to miss some other safety concern, such as oil temperature or low vacuum. One pilot nearly landed gear up at FME because he was distracted by SFRA related conversations with Potomac. Only a call from an aircraft waiting to take off saved a gear up landing.

 

[poadeleted20]

So the argument is, "Don't get SVT because it's so good, you may want to do something stupid"?

No, just commenting on the fact that it is so alluring that some folks might be tempted to do something unwise, and that they need to exercise an even greater level of self-discipline when using such systems -- and that I've known pilots who might not be capable of that self-discipline.

 

[jollyroger]

Well according to a study a while ago it was found that pilots using Glass were not any safer than steam gauge pilots.

Unfortunately the right answer is "it depends" and a lot of it depends on your personality. Just like in Unix emacs vs vi some like the complexity and "knowing the failure modes" of glass and some like the consistency and easier method of knowing what do do when a partial failure occurs in the six pack arrangement.

Since I'm a renter, and will likely still be flying steam for a while. I make sure that I'm safe and current on the steam side of things. (Although I have my VFR GPS that I will use in an emergency) Plus my home flight sim does a good job simulating the six packs and the GPS's they simulate have a lot less function than the real world systems.

I'm on steam for now (I did get checked out on Glass by the way just didn't like the idea of remembering what to do when something goes wrong).

 

[poadeleted20]

That's fine, I was just critiquing your Greek simile, but I understand that the SVT is more appropriately the Siren song leading to the rocky shoals.

Exactly what I was saying -- the equipment is Scylla, the displayed data are the song.

 

[wsuffa]

I obviously haven't performed a detailed study with a control group, but I have a couple of dozen friends with aircraft, everything from citations down to 150's.

I just noticed that the owner's who's primary concern is the cost, or lack there of, ie buy the cheapest fuel they can find, delay maint as long as they can, don't clean the planes, find the cheapest mechanics and used parts where posible etc etc are the last to update there avionics.

Of course I have many friends with steam gauges who's planes are immaculate.

If you're cheap your cheap, the people who don't spend money on their planes also don't want to spend money on their cars....

I was just making the point anyone flying for recreation that is worried about $20 an hour for anything should probably find another hobby.

I have a budget. The more I spend on fuel, maintenance, etc, the less I have to spend on avionics. Priority goes to maintenance and safety items - after all, I can safely fly with the existing GPS/autopilot/HSI/steam gauges, but I can't safely fly with a defective fuel pump or flat tire. I have no qualms about used parts that have been inspected for the rarer airframe-specific parts, but find the cost efficiency of used parts for routine-wear items such as spark plugs or vacuum pumps to be suboptimal.

 

[ferrari-tech]

You guys are all missing my point.

The two most common differences I read about glass vs steam is that some how the plane fly's different, and that it is more expensive.

I don't believe it fly's different from steam.

If people fly it different that or act and fly in a way that is more dangerous that is not the aircraft or the systems fault. That's the human.

Also the cost, while I'm renting $20 an hour to me is not a valid reason not to fly Glass.

I am more than happy to pay more for newer, better airplanes, with glass or not, some renters and owners are not...

Just because my personal interactions and evaluations don't mirror yours does not make them any less valid.

 

[Henning]

The plane does not fly different, the pilot's ability to perceive, assimilate, process, & act on the information the panel provides is different. The plane flies the same regardless if it has instruments or not.

 

[docmirror]

Exactly what I was saying -- the equipment is Scylla, the displayed data are the song.

Ugh, you've mixed two disparate Greek metaphors. Stop now, it's become tragic enough.

 

[MAKG1]

The two most common differences I read about glass vs steam is that some how the plane fly's different, and that it is more expensive.

I've NEVER seen ANY argument that said that glass airplanes fly differently than steam. Not common at all. They fly exactly the same, which is why you get no advantage from glass in VMC.

And it is more expensive. That you consider $20/hour (it's actually more like $40+ for a 172SP with glass, compared to a 172N with steam -- and that's the choice most of us really make) to be negligible means you have more spare money lying around than most. That's your good fortune. It's not universal; far from it.

Just because my personal interactions and evaluations don't mirror yours does not make them any less valid.

As fact, which is how you represented your argument, they are indeed not valid. Your opinions are not fact. You could have said you "felt" safer, which would be true (presumably). Instead, you said they are safer, and that folks who fly older airplanes are not safe. That's hogwash, and the Nall report and other accident statistics do not support the argument.

 

[douglas393]

This is an interesting statement. Do glass ships crash less than steam gauge ships? Or when you say "safety" do you mean the pilots of steam gauge aircraft do things that are less safe than their glass counterparts? I'd love to see your numbers on this.

The studies I have seen says no. See my previous post. Bottom line I think is if you at the cause of the majority of crashes, the things that a glass cockpit gives you that a steam gauge cockpit does not is rarely the saving factor in a crash. In the vast majority of accidents, pilots bend metal using perfectly good planes because of pilot factors, and not plane factors: a glass cockpit will not prevent that. As for SVT, I have flown most of my time now(almost 400) in a non SVT G1000. I have a few hours in a SVT G1000 C172, and for my flying the SVT is a distraction more than anything else. Granted I fly in Florida, and so in mountains I would probably say something different.

 

[RotorAndWing]

So, you have less time with it than I do....

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I disagree strongly with this philosophy. You do not want the laws of primacy and exercise working against you when you're making your first post-training approach to minimums. If you're going to fly glass, train on glass. If you're going to fly legacy 6-pack, train on that.

I would not advocate training on steam and going straight to "your first post-training approach" on glass. I think that it's important to learn how to properly operate the equipment you're going to use, and on that I'm sure we agree. But, when training for an initial PP or IR, I think the trainee will be best served in the long run if they develop the necessary situational awareness skills in their head before they just have it fed to them. The only exception in my mind is with an owner who already bought glass and will never fly without it.