New pilots learning on glass.. Problem down the road?

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

Dim the PFD and have them fly in reversionary mode. That's what the student would be doing in a PFD failure, and that's how Cessna and the FAA have agreed it should be trained.

Even in rev mode you still have all the same instruments. Am I missing something?

[Timbuff10]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

Even in rev mode you still have all the same instruments. Am I missing something?

About the only failure you are going to get in a G1000 is a screen failure of the MFD or PFD.

If one of the screens fail, it is supposed to automatically detect it and put itself into reversionary mode. I think he was saying to simulate a realistic failure you can dim the PFD to simulate its failure and then hit the red button which puts it in reversionary mode and you then have all your engine gauges and flight instruments on the MFD.

I would like to see some accident data on how safe a glass cockpit is compared to the traditional one. I have a feeling that once they become more popular the safety will go up dramatically as soon as people figure out how to use them.

[kellwolf]

I agree that they'll be safer once the learning curve (and the OOOOOH factor) stabilize. For now, they're just too new to have any data.

Timbuff's right. Like I said, the odds of you losing just the "vacuum instruments" in the G1000 are astronomical. You'll lose a screen before that happens. If you DO lose them, you've lost more than the AI and DG anyway. A screen failure is much more realistic and was always built into my checkouts. The flying on backup instruments with a failed PFD and only the MFD and X-track mode is a way to satisfy the partial panel portion of the instrument PTS only. I'd look for that to be changed in a few years for glass cockpits, though.

[JEP]

Originally Posted by Timbuff10

.......
I would like to see some accident data on how safe a glass cockpit is compared to the traditional one. I have a feeling that once they become more popular the safety will go up dramatically as soon as people figure out how to use them.

Another interesting comparison would be between the glass cockpit and Cirrus a/c.

Cirrus is a very safe a/c but when they first started being used, they were having a higher number of accidents than GA aircraft in general. People had the misleading feeling of being safer because of the BRS. Therefore, they were getting into situations where they had no business flying in. Inadvertent IMC, etc....

I wonder if the glass cockpit is leading to the same type of feeling?

[kellwolf]

As far as glass cockpit, I think the major pitfalls are gonna be reliance on automation (which is even a problem at the airline level) and people not looking outside, especially with the TIS system. What many people that fly these things don't realize is that TIS is only available in certain areas (hence the b*tchy lady saying "Traffic not available") and only picks up certain a/c. There is still a responsibility on the pilot to see and avoid. Used well, it's a fantastic tool, and it's saved my bacon a time or two. A Seminole took off the wrong way on the runway, no radio call while we were on the instrument approach (traffic was using 34, he was special and took off on 16 since he was going south). First indication I got was "Traffic." So, I glanced to where he was on the display, then (get this) LOOKED OUTSIDE to find him. Worked like a charm.

[JEP]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

As far as glass cockpit, I think the major pitfalls are gonna be reliance on automation (which is even a problem at the airline level) and people not looking outside, especially with the TIS system. What many people that fly these things don't realize is that TIS is only available in certain areas (hence the b*tchy lady saying "Traffic not available") and only picks up certain a/c. There is still a responsibility on the pilot to see and avoid. Used well, it's a fantastic tool, and it's saved my bacon a time or two. A Seminole took off the wrong way on the runway, no radio call while we were on the instrument approach (traffic was using 34, he was special and took off on 16 since he was going south). First indication I got was "Traffic." So, I glanced to where he was on the display, then (get this) LOOKED OUTSIDE to find him. Worked like a charm.

That's exactly what I am talking about. Granted I have not flown a GP, but until people really get used to it, that 'false' sense of security may get some into trouble.

[FlyChicaga]

Let me start off by saying I hold a very strong opinion that new pilots should be using the "steam" gauge setup for all training, except for their private pilot, where they should be using outside references for the great percentage of the time. If you think for one second that we don't need to learn to fly by looking out the window, you are mistaken. Before I go on, I share a story...

We were departing one day in the RJ, and had run all proper checks on our instruments prior to departure. Somehow, on the takeoff roll, our heading indicators swung massively off course, so that after takeoff our heading showed 90-110 degrees off. Luckily it was a clear day, so being my leg I just flew airspeed, altitude, and standby compass, but most importantly checked these against the two greatest instruments God has provided pilots: The horizon and the ground. We quickly resolved the problem and were on our IFR way. I just can't stress the importance of looking out the window!

But I digress...

For four years of college I spent my time studying Aviation Human Factors, much of it relating to cockpit display systems. I have had it beat into my head the multitude of reasons why glass cockpit designs are safer for the modern pilot. They are much more intuitive at quick glance for the pilot to know their speed, altitude, position, and attitude. It is very easy if you look at the G1000 package: It is all aerial maps, a compass, a massive attitude indicator, and speed and altitude tapes (which are very intutive). A pilot can quickly gather and compute the information displayed in their brain, without having to interpret it like they do in older "steam" gauge setups. Isn't an altitude tape that moves down as you go up (as if you are climbing a ladder) easier to understand for height than a needle going in a circle? Yes.

Thing is though, what do we want to teach new pilots? I'd say we want to teach them to take information, some which is rather non-intuitive, and learn to construct a "picture" of the flight with that information. By giving a new pilot glass, you are creating a situation where the flight "picture" can be easy to decipher. When you put them in front of a six-pack, it is much more difficult to decipher the needles and dials (many in similar colors) to create a mental "picture." I'd rather teach a pilot to read and understand the difficult dials than just reading the information off a screen. It helps develop the pilots brain to interpret information better to understand where they are in the three-dimensional world that is flight.

I don't even need to describe the problems created for a new pilot with the GPS overlay maps and airport diagrams. How will a pilot ever navigate using a tiller in one hand and a chart in the other? I guarantee that if all future pilots in training never must learn to use a 10-9 chart (airport diagram) to taxi without a GPS map, there will be many runway incursions in the future as they move to equipment as professional pilots that do not have such luxuries. It is hard enough as an airline pilot to taxi "heads-up" with all the checklists required on the ground, now throw in no prior experience having to mentally picture your position by referencing runway signs and landmarks at night? Dangerous position.

I equate the glass and steam argument like this: Would you teach your child to write their ABCs with a pencil or type them on the computer first? Steam gauges are the "pencil" of a pilot, where you must create a mental picture and use the tools in hand to accomplish the task. Glass cockpits are the "computer" of a pilot, where the letters are in front of you, and you just need to pick the right ones to spell the word.

[FlyChicaga]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

... There is still a responsibility on the pilot to see and avoid. Used well, it's a fantastic tool, and it's saved my bacon a time or two. A Seminole took off the wrong way on the runway, no radio call while we were on the instrument approach (traffic was using 34, he was special and took off on 16 since he was going south). First indication I got was "Traffic." So, I glanced to where he was on the display, then (get this) LOOKED OUTSIDE to find him. Worked like a charm.

I cannot stress how important see and avoid is. I've run into a few situations where we have passed by ultralights and gliders at our altitude, none of which has a transponder on board. Plus, the TCAS (or TIS) systems can be very confusing to a pilot, and actually do more harm than good. Let me see if I can post this article on TCAS.

Edit: Can't, it is too large. Here is the URL: http://www.eurocontrol.int/msa/galle..._21Apr2005.pdf

[jtrain609]

Yeah you can get weather uplinked onto a 430 along with TIS.

[kellwolf]

That's one small screen for a lot of info. You'll have guys squinting trying to get the info. In the meantime Joe in his Twin Cessna is coming in fast at 1 o'clock (Inside joke folks).

Matt, I agree that people should still learn on round dials. I'm a big supporter of that. However, after you learn how to fly it and the pitfalls associated with it, I still feel that glass makes you safer, especially from an SA stand point.

BTW, does the ERJ have anything that will let you know when the heading is off by X amount between the two displays? We get the annoying "EFIS COMP MON" all the time on the ground due to magnetic anomalies. All we have to do is flip the switch and set it with ye ole mag compass.

[FlyChicaga]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

Matt, I agree that people should still learn on round dials. I'm a big supporter of that. However, after you learn how to fly it and the pitfalls associated with it, I still feel that glass makes you safer, especially from an SA stand point.

BTW, does the ERJ have anything that will let you know when the heading is off by X amount between the two displays? We get the annoying "EFIS COMP MON" all the time on the ground due to magnetic anomalies. All we have to do is flip the switch and set it with ye ole mag compass.

First, yes, I agree that glass is more safe due to increased situational awareness. But I think we also agree that for new pilots in training, glass is detrimental to developing situational awareness in the first place.

Secondly, the ERJ we do have a heading miscompare, with an amber HDG annunciation when each AHRS heading reference is more than six degrees off. However, in our case, both separate AHRS units swayed on heading by the same amount. We have no idea why, but it fixed itself after some coaxing in the air. The interesting part was our MFDs, since they move with AHRS heading. We were flying northwest, yet the MFD showed us flying south I believe. Looking at the MFD for reference of position was messing us up more than looking out the window!

[Dugie8]

It is the 21st century ya'll, lets not be the old crotchety fella on the porch preaching about "Back in my day...." Flying is flying, glass doesn't make you any more safe or dangerous, your own attitude towards safety does that.

As the technology improves, glass cockpits will be the norm, best to start training on them now and have that learning curve conquered.

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by Dugie8

It is the 21st century ya'll, lets not be the old crotchety fella on the porch preaching about "Back in my day...." Flying is flying, glass doesn't make you any more safe or dangerous, your own attitude towards safety does that.

As the technology improves, glass cockpits will be the norm, best to start training on them now and have that learning curve conquered.

I thought you flew a DC-8? Do you guys even have an RNAV unit in that thing?

[Bandit_Driver]

I'll have to agree with the others that posted that the Steam Guages should be taught first. They provide an excellent foundation. I feel sorry for those guys that only learn glass then go job hunting in the Fr8 world. As we all know Fr8 is the last place technology will creep into.

I was taught on the basic six and flew that for a number of years before going to the airlines and learning glass. Then I went back to the freight world and steam guages. Going from Glass back to stream was a lot harder than going from steam to glass.

IMHO Those who learned on steam will have no problem going to glass. I can see someone having a hard time going from a glass only background having a hard time switching over to a job with only steam guages, espcially single pilot IFR.
================================================== ==='

I also believe that all Private pilots need to learn how to fly LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW.

FlyChicaga, I had a similar AHRS problem in the SAAB a couple of years ago. Just about just prior rotation we hit a RCL and it created a wicked shimmy and both AHRS units went nuts. Both EADI's rolled inverted and warning flags appeared. Thankfully, it was VFR and we got vectored back around.

[NJA_Capt]

Originally Posted by Bandit_Driver

FlyChicaga, I had a similar AHRS problem in the SAAB a couple of years ago. Just about just prior rotation we hit a RCL and it created a wicked shimmy and both AHRS units went nuts. Both EADI's rolled inverted and warning flags appeared. Thankfully, it was VFR and we got vectored back around.

Maybe this should be in the "you're the Capt thread...but here it is. IMC takeoff at JFK and lose 5...yes five of 6 compasses. We have with dual IRS (laseref IV), displayed on 4 MFDs, plus a steam gage HSI and a wet compass. After takeoff, ATC queried our heading. The HSIs had swung almost 90 degrees, with no flags and no miscompares. As far as the computers were concerned there were no problems because they all agreed. But, they agreed wrong....including the standby HSI (steam). The only reliable compass we had was "THE compass." Ever fly timed turns in a jet IMC in NY airspace?

This is exactly where "old school" flying comes into play. You may not be OK just because nothing is red or flashing. Sure Cessna says that the G1000 has next to 0 probability of failure, but I wish I had a dollar for everything Cessna told us "can't happen" but DID.

[Beers]

Originally Posted by Timbuff10

Ok, I can understand those points of view for sure... If you are getting into flying to be a freight dog then without a doubt I agree older airplanes are the way to go. I am yet to meet a student that told me on day one that he wants to fly old airplanes at night though. From what I have seen at my flight school, the two types of students out there are either the future airline pilot, or the guy who has a good job and always wanted to learn how to fly and is at a point in life where they can try it now.

Even when I was a flight instructor I didn't think I would be flying cargo, at least not until after about a year and I was exploring my options. Everyone wanted to go to the regionals so that is what was in my head. You just never know what opportunities will come up and what you will end up flying. For a person who is diehard on the airlines, then yeah, I doubt they will come across steam gauges much in their flying career.

Glass is the future, no question and training will have to adapt properly so that students have exposure to both steam and glass. The best solution would be to allow glass screens to also display information in the traditional steam gauge format, with all of the associated errors and drawbacks. The software would also need a way to display partial panel information in the six-pack display. At least get the student exposed to it and understand it. If in the future the student decides to pursue the freightdog route or any other place with the old gauges, they could always go and get some time in a simulator to get their scan back up. I imagine six-pack simulators will still be found for quite a while. Regardless of these new airplanes going all glass, there are still far more steam gauge planes flying around.

[Dugie8]

Originally Posted by jtrain609

I thought you flew a DC-8? Do you guys even have an RNAV unit in that thing?

Haha, very funny. We have dual FMS and the -73 series have a "glass" ADI and HSI.

[Stone Cold]

Originally Posted by jfleisher

woops, i thought it was Vmo to DH!!!!

Well, I was trying not to scare too many people on a public forum. Of course, I'm here in ICT now with Pounder, so it should be interesting on how much he tries to keep me to profiles, or whatever those thingies are called.


It's a joke, people!!! Yes, us freight dawgs are dangerous and should have been dead long ago, since we fly old equipment and don't have glass cockpits.

[killbilly]

So...

What are the avionics maintenance costs like for a typical steam-gauged aircraft, vs. a glass-packed one? Are there any kind of cost savings over the long run or are they too minimal to be of consequence?

[ananoman]

Originally Posted by killbilly

So...

What are the avionics maintenance costs like for a typical steam-gauged aircraft, vs. a glass-packed one? Are there any kind of cost savings over the long run or are they too minimal to be of consequence?

This would be hard to quantify. In a steam gauge light plane, you have to replace vacuum pumps on a somewhat regular basis if you are serious about flying IFR. If you go with a wet pump that you overhaul with the engine, this is less of a factor (still can't figure out why wet pumps are not more popular). If you look at a traditional 6 pack, none of the instruments are really that expensive. The exception is an HSI, which can cost a bundle if it is slaved. The good thing is most of the time you can have individual components overhauled or repaired is they fail. If you are curious look in Trade-a-Plane, as there are quite a few ads for instruments.

The same goes for radios, they are rather expensive. Especially the Garmins we all like so much, but they rarely fail.

Glass is probably less maintenance, but the cost to replace that stuff is extremely high. Since most of the systems are new, there have probably been few problems so far.

In the jets, the problem with steam gauges is getting parts for some of them. They just don't make new replacements anymore. Same goes for some of the first generation glass. Ten to fifteen years after production stops, parts are extremely scarce.

This may be a problem in the future with GA airplanes. Steam gauges were around forever. They had the advantage of being relatively interchangeable, since the mounting holes were a standard size. So were the rack mounted radios. The G1000 will be long out of production 20 years from now, but the aiplanes with that system will still be flying. You will probably see perfectly good airframes parked since it will cost more to upgrade the avionics than what the airplane is worth.