denverpilot
Tied Down
I also have these gems stashed away... (Our own David White... Grin... The long and edited versions...)
steam v TV
- Thread starter Let'sgoflying!
- Start date
EminiTrader
Cleared for Takeoff
Did you see it? Watch her eyes--she never even once looked outside the cockpit. Heads down the whole time.
dtuuri
I saw it. Unfortunately I fly a new Cirrus and it has Garmin Perspective. So I can't use steam gauges. Fortunately I can fly the airplane pretty damn good without autopilot, and I keep my head on a swivel. I do an IPC every 90 days although it is not needed. I'll do my best not to be a statistic for that article but I'll take my FIKI Cirrus over an old 172 any day of the week - but that's just me.
txflyer
En-Route
- Joined
- May 3, 2013
- Messages
- 4,509
- Location
- Wild Blue Yonder
- Display Name
Display name:
Fly it like you STOL it ♦
Some of my best approaches and landings are when I conciously tell myself to look outside and just fly the airplane like a boss and have fun.
Disregard everything except looking outside with a quick glance or two at the ASI and watch for traffic.
This is VMC of coarse.
Disregard everything except looking outside with a quick glance or two at the ASI and watch for traffic.
This is VMC of coarse.
Coloradokevin
Pre-takeoff checklist
Those are words I don't often see put together
Still, I think the important thing for any pilot is to learn the equipment they have. In many ways I feel like a duck out of water without steam gauges, but that's probably because all I've ever really logged time in are aircraft equipped with steam gauges!
That aside, a nice Cirrus with FIKI would sure be a nice setup, and though I haven't actually flown one, they look like very nice aircraft.
EminiTrader
Cleared for Takeoff
Those are words I don't often see put together
Still, I think the important thing for any pilot is to learn the equipment they have. In many ways I feel like a duck out of water without steam gauges, but that's probably because all I've ever really logged time in are aircraft equipped with steam gauges!
That aside, a nice Cirrus with FIKI would sure be a nice setup, and though I haven't actually flown one, they look like very nice aircraft.
They are awesome setups! They fly great and very easy to fly... I was being a bit sarcastic on an earlier post
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Don't see that?
What's having a glass panel of not have to do with a decline in GA, GA is just fine without glass panels, heck students are better off without them, instead of curling up and piddling themselves in the corner the people need to tell the FAA to get the pt 23 re write done.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Perhaps I wasn't clear. IFR capable new light airplanes are very expensive. And, most of them now have glass, I believe. They are too expensive for most people and the glass is overwhelming for some who managed to get exposed to it.
It seems most of the light GA fleet is old. That can only go on for so long.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
I suspect any discrepancies to be merely due to that fact that most aircraft with glass cockpits are considerably more capable than their steam-gauge ridden brethren. Faster aircraft tend to get into fatals more.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Faster aircraft also tend to have more experienced pilots, yet they're more dangerous with glass despite the experience and despite the better information available to the pilots. This doesn't surprise me. I believe in the "keep it simple, stupid" (KISS) philosophy or, better yet, "keep it stupid simple".
dtuuri
Last edited:
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Faster aircraft have always been flown in the majority by more experienced pilots. Yet Bonanzas got the moniker "fork tailed doctor killer" far before the advent of glass.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
I see lots of older IFR aircraft?
As for age, I trained in a 1940s 7AC, it's dispatch rate was 100% for me, had less issues than the newer stuff the school had.
The plane I had before my current one was built in the late 40s, flew it across the US a couple times, into Canada, got my CPL in her, kept it for years, operated everywhere from large international airports to beaches also got more attention on the ramp than a SR22 and had dirt simple systems.
Current plane is a 185 which Cessna doesn't make anymore, yet are still in high demand and chosen over new aircraft in the working bush airplane world.
Kenmore air has a fleet of DHC2s and single otters, they are flying all the time and Kebmore seems to do quite well with those old birds, no glass screens ether.
At the fight school I had we use a 70s plane, very basic with one VOR, I had a better profit margin than the schools with G1000s and I turned out great pilots and charged them less money, it was like shooting fish in a barrel.
Learning glass is easy, I've trained and transitioned folks into and out of G1000s, frankly the transition into G1000s is easy, especially once you learn to buttonology, now taking a glass guy and putting him into a six pack plane, that often requires a few more hours.
Fancy screens and "late model prestige" don't mean as much as you might think.
If anything threatens GA it a overgrown government and a population of impotent pansies who allow their government to run/ruin their lives.
dtuuri
Final Approach
The study as I understood it takes into consideration pilot experience and type aircraft and still concludes glass cockpits are twice as fatal as round dials. Maybe I read it wrong,
. My skepticisms are based on human observation and talking with fellow pilots who've flown both professionally. The study fits (no pun intended).dtuuri
CCluck
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2016
- Messages
- 22
- Display Name
Display name:
CCluck
I'd really like to have seven individual, round, electronic color-LCD screens that fit right into my existing panel holes, all driven by a central processor with AHRS and all that. Seems like a great combination to me, and maybe not too terribly difficult to build.
With two processors, running in tandem, I wouldn't be too concerned about failures. I'd put my analog ASI and TC over in the right panel so the co-pilot can save us when the electronics go fzz-kaput.
With two processors, running in tandem, I wouldn't be too concerned about failures. I'd put my analog ASI and TC over in the right panel so the co-pilot can save us when the electronics go fzz-kaput.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
I suspect the issue is not so much the PFD, though it could be. The huge AI especially is REAL nice for IMC. And you can learn to read tapes, bugs, and trend lines very quickly.
In a G1000 especially, and to a lesser extent in a well equipped GTN650 (with weather, ADSB, traffic, terrain, and all the other bells and whistles), is managing the huge amount of information through mediocre at best user interfaces. Pilots like to assume more information is better, but it often isn't. Particularly nasty additions are VNAV, and two axis autopilots, especially in combination.
I did my first TAA in a 172 that had an Aspen Evolution and no GPS (why someone would do that is beyond me, but it was there). The workload compared to steam was virtually identical. Then, another airplane (this time, an Archer) had the same Evolution, plus a GNS430W and STEC autopilot. That was a lot more work, especially the interaction between the systems. Later I tried a 172 with Evolution, 430, and no autopilot. It was almost as much work as the Archer, but not quite.
In a G1000 especially, and to a lesser extent in a well equipped GTN650 (with weather, ADSB, traffic, terrain, and all the other bells and whistles), is managing the huge amount of information through mediocre at best user interfaces. Pilots like to assume more information is better, but it often isn't. Particularly nasty additions are VNAV, and two axis autopilots, especially in combination.
I did my first TAA in a 172 that had an Aspen Evolution and no GPS (why someone would do that is beyond me, but it was there). The workload compared to steam was virtually identical. Then, another airplane (this time, an Archer) had the same Evolution, plus a GNS430W and STEC autopilot. That was a lot more work, especially the interaction between the systems. Later I tried a 172 with Evolution, 430, and no autopilot. It was almost as much work as the Archer, but not quite.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
The study as I understood it takes into consideration pilot experience and type aircraft and still concludes glass cockpits are twice as fatal as round dials. Maybe I read it wrong,
dtuuri
Yeah, and I can prove that US spending on Science and technology causes suicide by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation. What of it?
I'm an Occam's razor kinda guy. Most glass cockpit aircraft are faster than most steam gauge aircraft. Faster aircraft get into dutch faster. Seems pretty simple to me. But you can think whatever you like. Free country and all that.
petrolero
Pattern Altitude
caveat emptor
There are very few fatalities overall such that the rates quoted above are based on fewer than 10 events and, critically, have 45% and 24% standard errors, respectively.
That means that jumping to the conclusions that the author (of the Avweb piece) does about glass is unfounded based on those stats.
The overall accident rates, which have much smaller error bars for both steam and glass, are significantly LOWER for glass than for conventional.
And regarding the fatal accident rate... nowhere in that NTSB study did anyone attempt to compare the average horsepower of the two different aircraft groups. I think higher average horsepower is a potential partial reason for the higher fatal rate in the glass cohort.
I don't disagree that glass cockpit avionics are more complicated and require special training and I don't quibble at all with the findings of the NTSB report. But the NTSB didn't make the overzealous claims that the author of the Avweb piece made.
That fatality rate claim is an egregious cherry-picking by the author of statistically questionable rates from that NTSB report. See above.
Even the NTSB itself said those rates have enormous error bars.
That "twice as safe" claim that you and the author keep throwing out is bogus.
Sorry, the fatality rate data is horse manoeoeoeur and the author of that article (not the NTSB study - the Avweb sphincter piece) was off base to claim that steam is intrinsically "safer", much less twice as safe, as steam.
There are very few fatalities overall such that the rates quoted above are based on fewer than 10 events and, critically, have 45% and 24% standard errors, respectively.
That means that jumping to the conclusions that the author (of the Avweb piece) does about glass is unfounded based on those stats.
The overall accident rates, which have much smaller error bars for both steam and glass, are significantly LOWER for glass than for conventional.
And regarding the fatal accident rate... nowhere in that NTSB study did anyone attempt to compare the average horsepower of the two different aircraft groups. I think higher average horsepower is a potential partial reason for the higher fatal rate in the glass cohort.
I don't disagree that glass cockpit avionics are more complicated and require special training and I don't quibble at all with the findings of the NTSB report. But the NTSB didn't make the overzealous claims that the author of the Avweb piece made.
The study as I understood it takes into consideration pilot experience and type aircraft and still concludes glass cockpits are twice as fatal as round dials. Maybe I read it wrong,
dtuuri
That fatality rate claim is an egregious cherry-picking by the author of statistically questionable rates from that NTSB report. See above.
Even the NTSB itself said those rates have enormous error bars.
That "twice as safe" claim that you and the author keep throwing out is bogus.
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
I can't reply to petrolero because the two red x's in the top of his post render about 1000 lines of data dump in the editor.
What I would have said is the article's author was just pasting from the NTSB report, so quibble with them. I'm satisfied they both did excellent work.
dtuuri
What I would have said is the article's author was just pasting from the NTSB report, so quibble with them. I'm satisfied they both did excellent work.
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
Me too. The more distractions vie for your attention the less of your attention is available to stay out of danger.
dtuuri
petrolero
Pattern Altitude
Does this work? I had trouble posting that image. I ended up importing and using the image link. I would rather have just pasted it, which seems to work below??
Are we referring the the same article? I'm referring to the AvWeb piece by Jordan Miller. He did discuss some of the findings of the NTSB study in terms of the training problems with glass, but he got the top line statistic totally wrong. That "twice as safe" thing is based on a really bad fatality rate statistic with an error bar so large that it makes the stat meaningless.
Quotes based on ****ty statistics tend to live forever (see the glass ceiling myth) so I just wanted to point out the massive problems with stating that "Glass is twice as safe steam". It's simply not true.
I would recommend that people simply read the actual conclusions from the NTSB report itself, which are several notches less sensational than Mr. Jordan's rant.
Last edited:
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Am I reading you right that you're claiming a 2 sigma measurement invalidates a factor of two effect?
We'd all like 5-6 sigma in any measurement, but many discoveries are made at 2-3. It means, if you assume random and uncorrelated errors (big assumption), that the conclusion might be wrong 5% of the time. It's not an incredibly strong conclusion, but it clearly merits further study at 2 sigma.
Small sample statistics are not always ignorable. You definitely need to be much more careful, especially about systematics, but a sample of 10 is capable of resolving a factor of two effect based only on the counting statistics. True, it might really be a factor of 1.5 -- or 2.5 -- but it's somewhat unlikely to be below 1 or above 3.
We'd all like 5-6 sigma in any measurement, but many discoveries are made at 2-3. It means, if you assume random and uncorrelated errors (big assumption), that the conclusion might be wrong 5% of the time. It's not an incredibly strong conclusion, but it clearly merits further study at 2 sigma.
Small sample statistics are not always ignorable. You definitely need to be much more careful, especially about systematics, but a sample of 10 is capable of resolving a factor of two effect based only on the counting statistics. True, it might really be a factor of 1.5 -- or 2.5 -- but it's somewhat unlikely to be below 1 or above 3.
petrolero
Pattern Altitude
It says less than 10 events.
No. That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that the categorical statement that "steam is twice as safe as glass" is horse****.
Glass is more safe than steam as the data above shows. Why would the author choose to give more credence to the statistis with the enormous error bars while discounting the one right next to it with the small error bars?
dtuuri and the author of that article are both focusing on one fairly poor statistic alone - fatality rate.
You can go through the paper and find their chi squared analysis of statistical significance. The NTSB says that it is statistically significant. Fine. But the claim of "twice as safe" is crap when you look at the totality of the evidence in the report.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Nope, red X.Does this work? I had trouble posting that image. I ended up importing and using the image link. I would rather have just pasted it, which seems to work below??
I determined Miller quoted the report accurately enough that all my references are to the actual report. You refer to "less than 10" fatals. From the report (my emphasis):
"A comparison of the list of study aircraft with NTSB records identified 266 total accidents involving study aircraft between 2002 and 2008, 62 of which resulted in one or more fatal injuries."
dtuuri
Attachments
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
No, fatals are much more relevant.
Otherwise, you count pulling the "red handle" in the wrong column. Those do generally break the airplane, so they would factored as a liability, rather than the successful avoidance of death that they often are.
Many accidents have nothing to do with the panel, such as losing control in a gusty crosswind landing. This will just wash out any meaning.
You do not pick datasets merely by significance. Relevance is much more important. I could get a LOT more significance by using a Nielsen sample, but it would mean nothing for aviation.
You have to ask the question carefully. "Safer" is ambiguous, and means legitimately different things to different people. "Not dead" is very precise. Please don't refer to the NTSB's monstrosity of a definition of "accident."
Last edited:
tsts4
Pattern Altitude
I got my IR behind a G1000 and fly behind a 2-screen G3X fed by a GTN650 and SL30 today. I’m of the belief that just like in IFR flight there’s a difference between being current and being proficient the same logic extends into the TAA world. Except in the case of TAA I’d say it’s a difference between being familiar and being proficient. For glass that difference can lead to issues with potentially dire consequences much faster than in non-TAA cockpits (failure mode, info overload, buttonology, etc). However, I also belief that the flip-side is true in that with proper training and effort to remain proficient the information available to a TAA pilot can and does enhance safety. I don’t have stats to back that assertion up, buy what I can say is there’s no way I’ll go back to steam. YMMV…..
My first impression when flying glass was, "So what's the big deal?". . .it's basically just a screen display of the same info I had always used. Plus a real big AH, which was dramatic, but no meaningful improvement over the steam AH.
My second impression was "high maintenance", as in, feature bloat. In CAP, in the glass 182s, I'd notice the other pilots heads down-and-locked, in the glass.
Guys who few it regularly, or exclusively, could be more efficient, of course. As is, current state of the art, G-1000 and such are still way too clunky. I'm not seeing a dramatic advantage over a well equipped steam with, say, a two axis autopilot, coupled G-530 or such, with GPSS.
Too much of the glass info is surrounded by "noise" - in steam, the AS indicator serves one value up, has no other clutter on the face, and stays in the same location. Same same fir the rest of the six pack.
Understand, if you fly it all the time, you learn to adapt. But you can go TDY for six months, come home, and jump right back into a steam. Probably not in a G-1000 so much. It'san immature UI right now, and lacks the sophistication of evolved design.
My second impression was "high maintenance", as in, feature bloat. In CAP, in the glass 182s, I'd notice the other pilots heads down-and-locked, in the glass.
Guys who few it regularly, or exclusively, could be more efficient, of course. As is, current state of the art, G-1000 and such are still way too clunky. I'm not seeing a dramatic advantage over a well equipped steam with, say, a two axis autopilot, coupled G-530 or such, with GPSS.
Too much of the glass info is surrounded by "noise" - in steam, the AS indicator serves one value up, has no other clutter on the face, and stays in the same location. Same same fir the rest of the six pack.
Understand, if you fly it all the time, you learn to adapt. But you can go TDY for six months, come home, and jump right back into a steam. Probably not in a G-1000 so much. It'san immature UI right now, and lacks the sophistication of evolved design.
Unable to fly the plane properly and smoothly due to not knowing how to operate the myriad buttons, switches and screens. Pilot can fly the same plane with steam guages and an IFR/GPS he is familiar with, but cannot do it with a glass panel. Needs training. How much? Maybe 10, maybe 50 hours, someone must know. I know I was still finding functions in my IFR/GPS after several 100 hours I didnt know existed. Finally, I think I found them all. Its not easy and there aren't a lot of shortcuts. You just have to put the plane on autopilot and spend the whole flight going through every function.
tsts4
Pattern Altitude
IMO this is where a sim/procedures trainer on a computer or tablet is worth its weight in gold. Way safer and cheaper to learn the buttonology on the ground.
If you can find a sim, sure, use it. All the sims I used came with the caveat "now you have to understand, this isn't quite like the one in the airplane". Maybe some are, I dunno.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
I did some G1000/GFC700 practice recently on a sim reputed to use the actual G1000 software. It was DAMN close, and the only gripe I had was that the FMS knobs liked to jump contacts if I spun them fast. And of course the yoke feel was totally wrong, like they all are.
Is a G1000 about the same learning curve as the Garmin 430 or more or less hours?
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Significantly more. There is much more to a G1000 than a GPS. Though it's not a bad head start.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
A 430 is a basic LNAV navigator. A 430W is a WAAS navigator. A G-1000 is a WAAS navigator and an aircraft systems monitor. Lots more stuff going on with a G-1000.
Because of all the type-specific system stuff a G-1000 has to be certified as part of the type certification of the aircraft. In simple terms a G-1000 is "factory installed."
jordane93
Touchdown! Greaser!
If you really want to know the G1000, it will take a few hours. There's a lot more than just flight plans and the direct to key.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Not really.
If you can fly a GNS/GTN equipped plane with a six pack and a engine monitor, like a JPI, you can handle a G1000 just fine.
It's just like buying a new car, it's more or less the same thing as far as controls go, just some of those controls, door locks, gear selector, volume knob, well they are in different places and may have a different look, perhaps your climate control is now just a number for the temp vs the old red and blue.
A G1000 isn't really anything exotic or even new, just different places for the same stuff and a different place you look for the same values.
Over 80% of the G1000 can be learned with the quick reference manual, pilots manual, and plane, just sitting on the ground and pushing buttons, heck it doesn't even make the Hobbs meter tick!
jordane93
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yep I like to do a few ground lessons with the G1000 and I also give my students a computer sim. I also will do exercises in the air. A lot of times my students will get it o the ground but when put in the situation like loading the approach, changing map overlays, entering VNAV profiles, etc, they are hesitant. The G1000 and and GNS are similar IMO. The GTN series fixed everything wrong with the GNS and G1000. It's a very simple design.
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.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
You're leaving out the autopilot. That's a very large omission. Getting the GFC700 to actually follow a programmed VNAV profile is significantly harder than it should be. Careful, don't push the button too early!
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
If it's not VNAV capable, it's not in the same ballpark.
Autopilots were never standard on 172s prior to the restart, but they are in G1000s. And there is an extra level of complexity in the GFC700 compared even to the KAP140 used in the earlier 172SPs.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
True
But you don't have to look far to find a 172/82/200 series with a non factory vnav A/P, lest we even get into some of the fancy stuff seen in the exp world.
Even if you have vnav and IAS mode, it's really nothing that tuff to master and isn't super unique to glass.
But you don't have to look far to find a 172/82/200 series with a non factory vnav A/P, lest we even get into some of the fancy stuff seen in the exp world.
Even if you have vnav and IAS mode, it's really nothing that tuff to master and isn't super unique to glass.