steam v TV

[aterpster]

The difficulty is not so much that the displays are different. Pilots get used to that fairly quick. Most pilots find the glass displays easier to fly the plan with than round guages. The difficulty is the complexity of the unit. Has anyone actually counted the number of "pages" or states that these units have. Must be in the hundreds.

Part of that is the design gives you more than one way to accomplish some tasks. I find the big problem is rentals with a G-1000. Often the setup is not optimal for the next pilot's preferences.

 

[Wingsofglass]

First off, the study period was 2002 - 2008. What constituted a TAA aircraft in 2002? A 2" black and white moving map? I also remember that the DA-40 was randomly excluded from the study because it was "too safe" and made the TAA numbers look too good. If this forum existed when the AI came out, the same discussion would be taking place with everyone saying the turn coordinator and whisky compass are a way better solution.

While I wouldn't be surprised if TAA is no safer than steam, when there is enough data to make an accurate conclusion, I'll be very surprised if synthetic vision does not have a meaningful positive impact on accidents caused by botched instrument approaches, CFT and maybe even loss of control.

As always, if you need an autopilot to fly safely you are not safe to fly.

 

[flyingron]

Me demonstrating my qualifications as a Steam Gauge pilot...

 

[dtuuri]

First off, the study period was 2002 - 2008. What constituted a TAA aircraft in 2002? A 2" black and white moving map?

Nope, a PFD. You can read the study here: http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1001.pdf

I also remember that the DA-40 was randomly excluded from the study because it was "too safe" and made the TAA numbers look too good.

Wrong again, it's in there. Why would a study to see which is safer exclude airplanes on the basis of their safety record? You aren't one of them there "conspiracy theory" guys are ya?

dtuuri

 

[Wingsofglass]

Nope, a PFD. You can read the study here: http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1001.pdf



Wrong again, it's in there. Why would a study to see which is safer exclude airplanes on the basis of their safety record? You aren't one of them there "conspiracy theory" guys are ya?

dtuuri

You're right. Those two guys from the grassy knoll must have gone and put the DA40 back in. I swear the first study I saw about this excluded the DA40. I still stand by my data-less claim that SVT has a measurable positive impact on safety.

 

[drotto]

Really the only way to take the most variables out of this discussion is to compare the safety of the same airframe. For example how does a 30 year old Cessna 172 with steam compare to a brand new glass 172. The other thing I would like to know is how are safety rates based on primary flight training? Does a pilot trained on steam or glass have a better safety record?

 

[dtuuri]

Really the only way to take the most variables out of this discussion is to compare the safety of the same airframe. For example how does a 30 year old Cessna 172 with steam compare to a brand new glass 172. The other thing I would like to know is how are safety rates based on primary flight training? Does a pilot trained on steam or glass have a better safety record?

After you read the study please let us know the answers.

dtuuri