Glass Panels

[spiderweb]

Recent training has got me thinking. Just for fun, what do you think about glass panels in small GA aircraft?

 

[Ted]

1/4 for me. Honestly, I prefer my steam gauges, but I'll take a glass panel if I have to.

 

[spiderweb]

1/4 for me. Honestly, I prefer my steam gauges, but I'll take a glass panel if I have to.

Agree. The only thing that is really nice is that the people who buy the new aircraft tend to splurge for all the goodies (traffic, XM weather, etc,), and that makes it very nice.

 

[SCCutler]

My principal concern is the long-term reliability and serviceability of these systems. Proprietary, extremely limited service availability, cannot be repaired except at a manufacturer's facility.

Also, I am not terribly fond of single points of failure.

But I sure do like the eye-candy!

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I think saying "Glass Panels" can be such a broad stroke on the whole game. There is a vast functionality difference between a full blown G1000 system and something as basic as a Dynon EFIS.

In any case, I think they are great. They present a vast amount of information in a method which is easier for me to use. As a kid that grew up on various versions of MSFS, I never had issues with the glass panel deal. I do think that it takes more than a 1 hour checkout to be proficient with many of the systems, but I don't know where to say is good. I wish that we could figure out a method to get the lower priced equipment into the certified realm, but alas, that will never happen.

 

[spiderweb]

I wish that we could figure out a method to get the lower priced equipment into the certified realm, but alas, that will never happen.

I am not sure what you mean? The new panels in the new equipment seem not to affect the price of the aircraft considerably. But if you mean retrofitting, then yes, it might not be practical--especially not for Skyhawks and Archers.

 

[BillTIZ]

Glass is nice. Glass is expensive. Glass is expensive to repair.

 

[Areeda]

I found your choices a bit too biased.

The only thing good to say is "Thank goodness. I mean seriously, creating situational awareness the "old way" was just dangerous."

I'm perfectly capable of flying an NDB approach with 6 pack, but I prefer an LPV with weather, traffic and terrain in the cockpit. It's improved situational awareness and flexibility on long cross countries.

 

[spiderweb]

I found your choices a bit too biased.

The only thing good to say is "Thank goodness. I mean seriously, creating situational awareness the "old way" was just dangerous."

I'm perfectly capable of flying an NDB approach with 6 pack, but I prefer an LPV with weather, traffic and terrain in the cockpit. It's improved situational awareness and flexibility on long cross countries.

Biased how? Because as the creator of this for-fun poll, I should say, I am fine with the steam!

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I am not sure what you mean? The new panels in the new equipment seem not to affect the price of the aircraft considerably. But if you mean retrofitting, then yes, it might not be practical--especially not for Skyhawks and Archers.

I'm talking about lower equipment prices. Take a look at the price of a Grand Rapids or Dynon EFIS system, and compare it to something like a G500. It just doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Ted]

I'm talking about lower equipment prices. Take a look at the price of a Grand Rapids or Dynon EFIS system, and compare it to something like a G500. It just doesn't make much sense to me.

It would if you saw what those companies had to go through for certification. Certification of anything for aircraft is very expensive, electronics even moreso. A little insight:

The FAA isn't the expensive part or the holdup, it's the testing required. For electronics a simple endurance test won't do (not that a simple endurance test is sufficient for much of any certification). It's a battery of tests for various environmental conditions (including a fungus test), electrical tests (it can't disrupt anything else, it can't be disrupted, and it has to be able to be struck by lightning and still work), fire tests, plus whatever endurance testing to make sure it'll work for more than an hour. Then you have software functionality testing (less of a big deal), but also testing that ensures that every line of code within the software has a defined purpose. This is why Microsoft doesn't program G1000s.

If the testing doesn't go right the first time (it probably won't), then you have to go back, figure out why it didn't pass, fix it, test again. Plus you have a team of people, all of whom want to get paid for the whole time you're doing this. To figure out how much this costs, take an estimate off the top of your head, multiple by 100, and that will probably be about right. For experimental, well, it's experimental. Not saying it doesn't produce a good product, there's plenty of experimental electronic equipment I'd put in. But it does help explain why this stuff costs so much, especially when you have to spread out the cost over a pretty small number of units.

 

[Sticky1]

Oh yea, glass is better than sex.......

 

[Trapper John]

My principal concern is the long-term reliability and serviceability of these systems. Proprietary, extremely limited service availability, cannot be repaired except at a manufacturer's facility.

I think that's a very valid concern. What happens when today's glass 172 is 20+ years old and worth about $50-60k? If the G-whatever throws craps, who's going to dump the complete value of the plane (or more) into a new glass panel system?

Will we see 172s and such going to the scrapyards because it's not worth it to replace the avionics? Maybe some enterprising person will come up with an "old school" 6-pack conversion STC...

But I sure do like the eye-candy!

I can see the benefits, improved situational awareness and so on, but I really don't feel like paying a $30/hour rental premium for a glass 172 versus a standard one to fly VFR.

 

[EdFred]

I like my "glass" panel.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

It would if you saw what those companies had to go through for certification. Certification of anything for aircraft is very expensive, electronics even moreso. A little insight:

Very true. All the more reason that if I'm ever in a financial position to buy a plane, it'll be an experimental.

 

[poadeleted20]

Agree. The only thing that is really nice is that the people who buy the new aircraft tend to splurge for all the goodies (traffic, XM weather, etc,), and that makes it very nice.

Some of us put that stuff in 30-year-old planes.:wink2:

All in all, I think integrated display systems are great, because they make it easier for your eyes/brain to process the visually-depicted information without having to integrate several numeric dials and convert the information on them into a mental visual picture. I think in another decade or two, we'll look on "steam gauges" the way we now look on NDB/ADF, or even four-course ranges (or mimeographs and ditto machines -- remember the smell of those purple pages in class?).

That's not to say I think it's necessary that the FAA outlaw steam gauges and require retrofit of G500's in every plane used for instrument flight. With proper training and proficiency flying, the old gauges do the job just fine...

...but the new stuff does it much better.

So, all in all, I can't find one of your provided options which adequately reflects my feeling on the issue. Guess I'll have to abstain from the vote.

 

[jtheune]

The problem I see is that the trend in electronics is not to have support for items that are more then 5-10 years old. Given the cost of having to replace a entire glass setup then it could be a real issue if one board failed 10 years from now. If there is a requirement for the manufacturer to have the parts available in some way to replace parts with a reasonable cost then I think the benefits of having glass are really there.

 

[spiderweb]

I can see the benefits, improved situational awareness and so on, but I really don't feel like paying a $30/hour rental premium for a glass 172 versus a standard one to fly VFR.

Where I fly, there is only a $10 premium, and they often have periods where it is the same price.

Also, they have a G1000 C182.

 

[spiderweb]

The problem I see is that the trend in electronics is not to have support for items that are more then 5-10 years old. Given the cost of having to replace a entire glass setup then it could be a real issue if one board failed 10 years from now. If there is a requirement for the manufacturer to have the parts available in some way to replace parts with a reasonable cost then I think the benefits of having glass are really there.

I wonder about that, because the G1000 uses replaceable LRUs. So I was assuming that upgrades would simply be a matter of swapping them out? Not sure.

 

[spiderweb]

...but the new stuff does it much better.

So, all in all, I can't find one of your provided options which adequately reflects my feeling on the issue. Guess I'll have to abstain from the vote.

I wish I could go back and put in the choice, "The new stuff does it much better!"

 

[nyoung]

Glass panels are great, but they definitely are more expensive to update/maintain than the individual pieces of a steam gauge based panel.

Ask an SR22 owner how much Avidyne wants to upgrade older glass to their latest model (r9). It is >$75k. Yikes!

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Technically arent the 6 pack instruments covered by glass?

 

[Everskyward]

I think saying "Glass Panels" can be such a broad stroke on the whole game. There is a vast functionality difference between a full blown G1000 system and something as basic as a Dynon EFIS.

That's true. In the space of a few years I went from no glass, not even a moving map, to fully automated, total glass. At least I'm glad it happened in steps. First we got MFDs with moving maps, then I moved to an airplane with a 5-screen EFIS, then to the big four panels of glass with an FMS to match. To me, flying with the automated system is not so much about looking at the displays as being able to set up the whole system to make it do what you want at the proper time. The main thing I had to get used to about the displays was that I found it a little more difficult to instantly interpret the altitude and airspeed tapes (especially the airspeed). It's easier to see the position of the needle at a glance than to read a number.

I can't say that I've ever flown a small airplane with glass although I've ridden in a couple. I would say that it is harder for me to look at an unfamiliar glass setup than it is to look at conventional instruments when I'm stepping in the airplane for the first time. That's not even counting the button-pushing that it takes to get the whole thing working properly. I think glass is fine and it gives you a lot of information but I also think it takes longer to learn and to transition between systems.

I've also heard the argument that if you are planning to go on to fly for a living you should learn initially on glass. While you probably will end up flying glass sometime in the future there are a lot of entry-level and not so entry-level flying jobs where the airplanes still have round dials so you are likely going to be facing the other transition unless you severely limit yourself on the jobs that you will take.

 

[poadeleted20]

Glass, round dials -- it's no different than riding a bicycle, just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.

Seriously, the same information is presented, just on one big screen rather than several different dials. Yes, when you get to the fully integrated systems like the G1000, there's some learning how to get it to do the things which you learned to do one box at a time with steam gauges or, halfway between, in the original Avidyne system. The only fundamental difference is now one now tunes all the radios instead of having on knob for each radio, so you have to learn how to get the knob to do what you want, not just grab the right knob.

 

[spiderweb]

Today was the 2nd of three lessons. It was the first IFR transition lesson. It is feeling better. Concurrently, I am also reading Max Trescott's book, as a backup to the G1000 manual and the Kingschools videos.

At this point, it really is buttonology. I am getting to prefer the PFD, and I also realize that it doesn't change much. "Aviate (PFD--doesn't change much, which is good), Navigate (MFD and knobs--setup as much as possible on the ground or before the approach), and Communicate (same as for steam gauges)."

I'm glad to be doing the transition in C172s, since they're nice 'n slow. When the C182 comes back online, that will be nice, though!

 

[flyersfan31]

glass = vast improvement in situational awareness. That big horizon line alone is worth the price of admission. I don't care enough to get into a steam vs glass argument. To each his own. I find it hard to believe that the steam 6 pack is more effective in delivering the important information than a glass PFD. One man's opinion, worth what you paid for it.

 

[Everskyward]

At this point, it really is buttonology. I am getting to prefer the PFD, and I also realize that it doesn't change much.

That's what I found too, with a bigger airplane whose buttons do more. Learning how to program the thing was about 90% of the effort compared with learning how to look at the display which was about 10%.

 

[Dale Young]

Im afraid of losing all that info due to a single failure. My steam guages will all still work.

 

[spiderweb]

Im afraid of losing all that info due to a single failure. My steam guages will all still work.

No! Don't worry! A single failure means reversionary mode, and one display with all the info you need. A DOUBLE failure (very rare) means you still have the keep-you-upright instruments (steam) available. Also, as I understand it, steam fails more frequently than LRUs.

I am becoming a convert!

 

[EdFred]

No! Don't worry! A single failure means reversionary mode, and one display with all the info you need. A DOUBLE failure (very rare) means you still have the keep-you-upright instruments (steam) available. Also, as I understand it, steam fails more frequently than LRUs.

I am becoming a convert!

Especially when you forget to shovel coal into the boiler. No wonder the useful load sucks on planes with steam gauges.

 

[spiderweb]

Especially when you forget to shovel coal into the boiler. No wonder the useful load sucks on planes with steam gauges.

I think (and hope) you're being sarcastic.

The problem is, the new aircraft with G1000 tend to have "extras" like crappy air conditioning which reduces useful load . . . .

 

[hindsight2020]

It would if you saw what those companies had to go through for certification. Certification of anything for aircraft is very expensive, electronics even moreso. A little insight:

The FAA isn't the expensive part or the holdup, it's the testing required. For electronics a simple endurance test won't do (not that a simple endurance test is sufficient for much of any certification). It's a battery of tests for various environmental conditions (including a fungus test), electrical tests (it can't disrupt anything else, it can't be disrupted, and it has to be able to be struck by lightning and still work), fire tests, plus whatever endurance testing to make sure it'll work for more than an hour. Then you have software functionality testing (less of a big deal), but also testing that ensures that every line of code within the software has a defined purpose. This is why Microsoft doesn't program G1000s.

If the testing doesn't go right the first time (it probably won't), then you have to go back, figure out why it didn't pass, fix it, test again. Plus you have a team of people, all of whom want to get paid for the whole time you're doing this. To figure out how much this costs, take an estimate off the top of your head, multiple by 100, and that will probably be about right. For experimental, well, it's experimental. Not saying it doesn't produce a good product, there's plenty of experimental electronic equipment I'd put in. But it does help explain why this stuff costs so much, especially when you have to spread out the cost over a pretty small number of units.

Your point is noted, but I still have to disagree with you on the justifiability. I don't find ANY part of the certification cost process justifiable. If anything, experimental aviation is disproving the very expense of the certification process by fielding the technology in an "over-the-counter" fashion and sitting back and watching.....and ....nope, experimentals are not falling out of the sky. A hell of a testament considering the inherent lack of manufacturing/outfitting standards in the community. People are not crashing into mountains because their Dynons are going TU on them in the soup, versus the safety blanket carpet those G1000 et al folks have by the issuance of the world's most expensive sticker.

Certification is killing the dream of flight for the american prole. Granted, the culprit lies in tort law and not the actual exercise of equipment testing, but I find the moral difference irrelevant, as the outcome is the same. The day experimental equipment starts causing fatalities left and right above and beyond that of certified equipment, then the cost overun of certification would gain credibility. As it stands it's nothing more than a self-licking ice cream cone and complicit in the increasing inaccessibility of general aviation. Of course, if you CAN afford the G1000-laden contraptions then this message doesn't resonate much, but I'll keep the class warfare discussion outside the scope of this thread.

 

[flyersfan31]

I think (and hope) you're being sarcastic.

Ed?? Never.

 

[spiderweb]

Of course, if you CAN afford the G1000-laden contraptions then this message doesn't resonate much, but I'll keep the class warfare discussion outside the scope of this thread.

Too late. And besides, like I said, the G1000 aircraft where I rent are only $10 more per hour.

 

[dpk1nba]

Im afraid of losing all that info due to a single failure. My steam guages will all still work.

I agree, thats why I think the glass panel should have steam guage backups. One of the planes at my home field has both. I think having both also makes the transition easier

 

[spiderweb]

I agree, thats why I think the glass panel should have steam guage backups. One of the planes at my home field has both. I think having both also makes the transition easier

Most of the G1000 installations have three steam-gauge backups. Also, don't forget about reversionary mode.

 

[TMetzinger]

And don't forget the new NTSB requirement to report loss of more than 50% of your screens - in the typical G1000, that means (to me) you need to report using the reversionary mode for real.

The real "tough" failure mode in the G1000 is when you lose some of the LRU sensors like the AHRS or the ADC - where the screen works but some of the information is gone. Then you have to scan between the screens and the backup gauges.

The REALLY GOOD part about the G1000 is that there are relatively few modes where it "lies" to you. It's either good, or it's flagged.

 

[spiderweb]

The REALLY GOOD part about the G1000 is that there are relatively few modes where it "lies" to you. It's either good, or it's flagged.

And that's what I have come to appreciate. No slowly dying AI. If it doesn't work, you know it right away, and you're not going to follow an erroneous indication into your grave.

 

[RJM62]

Personally, I prefer steam.

Maybe it's because I basically distrust computers, having spent the better part of my adult life dealing with misbehaving ones.

Or maybe it's because I started my training in a Cub, which is about as minimalist as instrumentation gets.

Or maybe it's because when the sun is shining at a certain angle, the glass display gets hard to read.

Or maybe it's because my first solo was in an airplane with steam gauges.

Whatever the reason, I'm comfortable with both; but when I have a choice, I rent an airplane with steam gauges.

-Rich