I remember when RNAV first came out. Pilots wanted to input the nearest VOR's radial and distance to the outer marker. "Why would you want to do that?" they asked us. Radial and distance information wasn't available anywhere, even for airports in the early days. Unless they work in the cockpit they can't know what pilots find useful. The FAA went to the trouble of charting RNAV routes for us to use, like everybody would want to fly where the FAA wants instead of where their passengers want. Now, to make room for information, stuff you really don't need, they turn the round dials sidewise, like looking at the edge of a coin, and paint numbers on the edge. Instead of instant recognition, you have to stop and interpret the number, "Uh, is that number higher or lower than the one I should be targeting, uh, what was the target again?"Oh, you can bet the designers do know the limitations. Good ones at least.
Yep, they've failed too. Fatal accidents are twice as high in TAAs than steam. FITS was another BS program. Bet the "solution", though, is more of the same.There is a whole cottage industry in "human factors" as it relates to aviation, though it's largely limited to airliners and various ATC facilities (at least, it is here).
That article is poorly written and wouldn't pass muster in my wife's 5th grade class. What studies is he referring to and where is he getting his numbers? Since I was curious, I tracked down a NTSB study and found this interesting:
"Over the entire
period from 2002 through 2008, aircraft in the glass cockpit cohort showed a disproportionately
lower rate of total accidents per registered aircraft but a disproportionately higher rate of fatal
accidents per registered aircraft than those in the conventional cohort. "
Much like pilots with an IR rating; less accidents but the accidents that occur are more often fatal.
I think training is still an issue as well. When I did my G1000 checkout, I knew more than the CFI who was checking me out. That experience made me recognize that my training is my responsibility. Cirrus obviously recognized this and I wonder if the study was done today if the improved accident rate with those aircraft would skew the results at all.
Here's a link to the NTSB study:
http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1001.pdf
Yup. There's a reason why most people wear digital watches but demand analog displays.This is exactly what I don't like about glass panels. I can glance at my ASI needle and tell it's right. More importantly, I can glance at the Altimeter needle to see if it's Straight Up/Down and the IVSI to see if it's horizontal. With glass, I have to look much longer to recognize the number and se if it's the right one or not. ...
Most commonly heard sentence in a G1000 cockpit: "What's it doing now?"
Well, I don't know. Even with the best and most thorough instruction, memories decay. People not flying the G1000 very frequently will begin to forget things. Also, in an airplane flown by more than one pilot, settings get changed.A cry out into the darkness for better instruction.
You are correct. The avionics can either be your best friend if you are proficient or your worst enemy if you aren't proficient. When I do Cirrus transition training the first thing I tell my student is that they will absolutely have no problem flying the airplane but the avionics will be the steepest learning curve. We usually do about 3 ground lessons with the GPU plugged in and twisting knows and pushing buttons.I vote for the TAA cockpit, but only for the TA pilot.![]()
Glass is nice but most rental aircraft and planes that I could afford to buy are steam gauges.
What do you do if your airspeed is wrong? I know what I do, I look at my GPS (ground) speed. I get laughed at because "that doesnt include the wind". It is one heck of a lot better than nothing at all. I usually know if I have a tailwind or headwind, because I look at it all the time. I can also keep my wings level by just looking at the IFRGPS right/left line. There is a lot there that can be used in an emergency, but you have to train for it. Are there any books or articles advocating these backup techniques?
I'll take a G1000 any day of the week and twice on Sunday hand flying in IMC. The large AI, the HSI and the RMI all in one compact area to scan are all plusses to me. I notice that the median age in that study was 47. I wonder if those of us who grew up playing flight sim on PCs that use EADIs with speed and altitude tapes have less of an adjustment?
My personal take away is that it is a training issue, not an issue with the equipment itself.
Pilots of TAA kill themselves more often than steam gauge aviators—almost twice the rate, according to the NTSB. Technology advances address many of the leading causes of GA fatalities: loss of control, controlled flight into terrain, fuel problems, midair collisions and weather.
From that he derives a crap load of opinions, causes, and solutions....pilots flying TAA have higher ratings and more experience. A majority are instrument rated.
So if you found yourself nodding your head while reading that piece it's probably because he was confirming your pre-existing biases.
Not sure they have any plans to go back. Check out this video
http://cirrusaircraft.com/whats-new-in-2016/
Not sure they have any plans to go back. Check out this video
http://cirrusaircraft.com/whats-new-in-2016/
Except that the underlying study was quite unbiased:"Potential confounds related to aircraft age, equipment, and usage were controlled for to the extent possible in the present study by identifying groups of similar aircraft of similar age, with and without glass cockpits, and then gathering the information necessary to further identify any differences in use or user population."You can read it here: http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1001.pdf
Maybe pictures would explain it better:
![]()
dtuuri
Did you see it? Watch her eyes--she never even once looked outside the cockpit. Heads down the whole time.
dtuuri