Why do people argue glass vs steam?

My first few hours of flying, the instructor had to cover some gauges so I learned to focus on what was important for learning VRF flying. Steam gauges seem practical for training, especially the first 10-20 hours, after that not so much.
 
I guess it’s what your used to. I’m used to steam. Was in IMC for a lesson the other day and threw autopilot on to look at something and for fun turned on the ForeFlight synthetic horizon thingy that when I signed up for it I thought would be cool... I was lost! But I’m sure with time you’d get used to it.
 
Oh my; some observations from a former, long ago, avionics tech and a long time IT guy and older pilot, with significant time in both glass and steam:

Glass trend indications are somewhat inferior, but total situation awareness is somewhat better. An analog AS indication, for example, is more intuitive, whether trending up or down, or fairly static. Integration in glass can be superior, but the workload, the "care and feeding", if you will, is more labor intensive - the user interfaces are rather ****-poor, as in the G-1000, but will likely improve as time goes by.

If you fly a lot, especially IFR, then I think glass is slightly superior. If you don't fly a lot, or mostly VFR, then I think steam has a slight advantage. But neither is dramatically superior to the other. No diffrence worth arguing over, even though we do. . .

About the age thing - in interviewing for new hires (non-aviation) my experience is younger applicants are less computer literate - usually sh*t hot with social media, but much less so with using IT as a productive tool - kinda suck with the whole back office thing, but that's relative to middle-age workers who have had a couple decades to become skilled. As a generalization, younger, non-IT, people just are not as facile with software used to get work done.
 
teejayevans said:
Next you going to be telling me these are the same as computers (numbers are the same either way) :
1dd0f69048b27d1b46a92424130999ce.jpg
Click to expand...

.

I use one of those, but it's modernized. Has an electric motor instead of the hand crank. :confused: :p
 
@Sundancer

I see trends in glass much faster than in steam gauges. In addition, most glass systems are more sensitive so you can see deviations faster.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
If my glass panel fails I can look at GP on my iPhone. That VSI is more accurate than the TSO steam gauge in my Cessna. Welcome to the 21st century.
 
Shepherd said:
If the static port gets blocked, you can break the glass on the VSI and things will work again.
Try that on GS1000 system. :p
:stirpot:
Click to expand...
That's why the G1000 has an alternate static valve.
 
I think most guys who argue against glass probably haven't used it and don't understand it as well as they imagine. I used to be one of them. Now? After using glass in my Cub? If I had $30K laying around I'd be putting a G500 system into the 180. Not a go/no go priority but it would improve the airplane, and that's what most of us want.
 
I personally have no desire for glass, but then I fly an open cockpit biplane; I'm not concerned with utility, and steam gauges do everything I need (though I do use a tablet on a kneeboard for navigation sometimes). A glass panel just seems wrong in an old fashioned airplane, though I know Waco is putting them in their new planes. OTOH, if I flew IFR and expected the plane to be useful transportation, I can't imagine not wanting a modern glass panel.
 
Dan Thomas said:
That's why the G1000 has an alternate static valve.
Click to expand...

Most modern planes, even with steam gauges, have dual static ports, and every once in a while they both fail.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not taking sides in this discussion. I fly steam and glass, as required.
My biggest complaint with "glass" is the manufacturers don't standardize their display information or button layout.
It's a pain in the buttocks jumping from plane to plane when dealing with glass.
 
Shepherd said:
Most modern planes, even with steam gauges, have dual static ports, and every once in a while they both fail.
Click to expand...

Alternate doesn’t used either, it has it’s own port inside the aircraft.
So, you would need to clog both static ports and alternate, highly unlikely if plane is maintained and pilot has done a proper preflight inspection . If flying IFR and you don’t maintain your plane or do a preflight, well you can’t fix stupid.
 
I don't have a preference, but I do wonder which one will be better if I have a real emergency in IMC. With not much experience with glass, I don't know the answer to that question.
 
sarangan said:
I don't have a preference, but I do wonder which one will be better if I have a real emergency in IMC. With not much experience with glass, I don't know the answer to that question.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s so much one is better than the other but more of a function of proficiency.

That said once you are proficient with a glass system the automated portions available are pretty darn nice.
 
Shepherd said:
My biggest complaint with "glass" is the manufacturers don't standardize their display information or button layout.
Click to expand...
My biggest complaint with glass is the pervasive misunderstanding that any malfunction will result in a big red X.
 
Shepherd said:
Most modern planes, even with steam gauges, have dual static ports, and every once in a while they both fail.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not taking sides in this discussion. I fly steam and glass, as required.
My biggest complaint with "glass" is the manufacturers don't standardize their display information or button layout.
It's a pain in the buttocks jumping from plane to plane when dealing with glass.
Click to expand...

At least colors and symbols are standardized, the magenta line is the same no matter which manufacturer. I assume that may be an FAA requirement.
 
Here's my "both" solution. I do tend to favor the steam altimeter, but I'll most often reference the glass airspeed readout. It's nice to be able to cross-check them.


IMG_2309.jpg
 
Velocity173 said:
It’s funny, my brother does ATC was commenting on the young ATC guys the other day. Said they rely on the software in order to issue a vector but once it’s gets busy, they don’t have time to use that feature and must rely on good ole fashion ATC. Said their vectors go to crap when they have to do it themselves. :D Also said they spend most of their time starting at their phones vs studying the job.

While we have a new crop of tech savvy aviation professionals, because of outside distractions, I wonder if they’ve learned the basics of how to perform on their job.
Click to expand...
That sounds like the new young guys I've had to train on my job. It's frustrating because they never pickup the official training manuals or study the systems. They're into their phones or the TV that we have in the Control room. Due to the nature of my job, there's a lot of down time. Rather than use it to study, they goof off. As senior Controller, I try to encourage them to take the job seriously, because once their training is complete, they will be up there all alone. The responsibility of operating high voltage equipment, with the lives of others in your hands, is nothing to take lightly. The other issue is, they've never worked on the electrical equipment that they are now responsible for controlling (pushing buttons and icons on the workstation PCs). I'm the last one in my job title who've actually installed and maintained any of the equipment. Unfortunately this has become the current trend over the last decade. :eek:
 
Well, the other thing is the myth that glass mx costs are zero or inconsequential, usually furthered by using the canard of brass instrument overhauls as being both frequent and cost-onerous. In my observation and personal experience, all three utterances have proven false.

I've never had anything bad to say about the technical merits of electronic display of information. My objection is strictly on cost; that is not a Luddite argument. So don't lump us all non-glass people in the same boat. Things is, are people seriously going to reject ownership/participation in the hobby on the basis of not being able to afford glass? I just can't relate to those people, but I recognize they exist.
 
tspear said:
@Sundancer

I see trends in glass much faster than in steam gauges. In addition, most glass systems are more sensitive so you can see deviations faster.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
For trends, I think it's probably subjective, and personal. And if the source for either set-up happens to be a GA pitot-static system, deviations appear more or less at the same rate. Precision and accuracy are not the same thing, either - as in the altimeter "tape" displaying a very precise value, within a few feet,though the "sensor" is likely not nearly accurate enough to reflect altitude to that level.

For me, an unwinding altimeter or AS on steam is about the same as a glass tape, both being analog descriptions of rate. Just don't see one having much to reccomend it over the other.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Well, the other thing is the myth that glass mx costs are zero or inconsequential, usually furthered by using the canard of brass instrument overhauls as being both frequent and cost-onerous. In my observation and personal experience, all three utterances have proven false.
Click to expand...

When a glass panel does go T/U it can be nosebleedingly expensive to repair. Going mainly by Avidyne repair costs and maintenance plans. Stipulated that solid-state should be more reliable than spinning gyros and mechanically linked bellows, but when they do go bad, sometimes the factory is your only option, and they seem to price repairs accordingly.

In my Sky Arrow, the little Dynon D10A was about $2,700. Installing electric attitude and turn coordinator as backups instead would likely have cost more. Granted, the Dynon is not certified, but the cost delta between glass and steam on initial purchase can conceivably go either way.
 
FastEddieB said:
When a glass panel does go T/U it can be nosebleedingly expensive to repair. Going mainly by Avidyne repair costs and maintenance plans. Stipulated that solid-state should be more reliable than spinning gyros and mechanically linked bellows, but when they do go bad, sometimes the factory is your only option, and they seem to price repairs accordingly.
Click to expand...

I had the opposite experience when I sent in my glass panel for repair (bad pitch gyro). Even though it was well out of warranty--purchased in late 2014--the company repaired it, sent it back to me and only charged for shipping. It's to the point (with Experimentals, at least) where you can get a glass panel for the price of two steam gyro instruments and a vacuum pump. Love the trend of STCs so certified planes can enjoy the benefits of affordable glass too.
 
I like steam. I don't argue with people over what they like. I don't care what they like. I don't care how they feel about what I like. I stay happy.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
I had the opposite experience when I sent in my glass panel for repair (bad pitch gyro). Even though it was well out of warranty--purchased in late 2014--the company repaired it, sent it back to me and only charged for shipping. It's to the point (with Experimentals, at least) where you can get a glass panel for the price of two steam gyro instruments and a vacuum pump. Love the trend of STCs so certified planes can enjoy the benefits of affordable glass too.
Click to expand...
What company? I like to know which avionics companies treat their customers right. I've had great customer service from Bose, MGL, and the Garmin G3X team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top