NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraft
- Thread starter SteveC
- Start date
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
You've got to be kidding me on that part. Based on that, I could have 5 identical Cessna 172SP's on the ramp, and have to have a rating in each one of them, because they have different software? Unbelievable. An endorsement to operate a glass panel, sure, I'd be fine with that. But training for each software type, unreal.
You've got to be kidding me on that part. Based on that, I could have 5 identical Cessna 172SP's on the ramp, and have to have a rating in each one of them, because they have different software? Unbelievable. An endorsement to operate a glass panel, sure, I'd be fine with that. But training for each software type, unreal.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
I watched the webcast live yesterday and thought they did a great job of summing everything up.
I agree that training is really the key to reducing the accident rate. The problem is that nobody (myself included) knows how to implement better training. Is it through endorsements? If so, endorsed for what? Or through more standardized CFI training? Better factory training? How to pass on training to pilots buying used glass cockpit aircraft that wouldn't normally go to factory training? What should be mandatory and what should be voluntary?
It's kind of a mess, but I think the NTSB is on the right track and gave good recommendations.
I watched the webcast live yesterday and thought they did a great job of summing everything up.
I agree that training is really the key to reducing the accident rate. The problem is that nobody (myself included) knows how to implement better training. Is it through endorsements? If so, endorsed for what? Or through more standardized CFI training? Better factory training? How to pass on training to pilots buying used glass cockpit aircraft that wouldn't normally go to factory training? What should be mandatory and what should be voluntary?
It's kind of a mess, but I think the NTSB is on the right track and gave good recommendations.
Douglas
Old School KSUX
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
When I started flying glass, I wondered when the endorsement requirement was going to happen. I really won't surprise me if it does come to that. It is a whole new animal. I don't know if an endorsement would do anything to really impact the number of fatalities, brought on by people over relying in the airplane technology.
When I started flying glass, I wondered when the endorsement requirement was going to happen. I really won't surprise me if it does come to that. It is a whole new animal. I don't know if an endorsement would do anything to really impact the number of fatalities, brought on by people over relying in the airplane technology.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
No, that's the point...their recommendation was originally worded in a restrictive way, but then they scratched it to be more generalized.
No, that's the point...their recommendation was originally worded in a restrictive way, but then they scratched it to be more generalized.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
The problem with endorsements is that the systems are too varied to be of much use.
A person might be an expert in G1000s but not know anything about Avidynes, or vice versa. So would endorsements be needed for one specific system, or all glass cockpits in general? To throw another wrench in to the mix, the same system can be considerably different based on software installation. A G1000 from 2004 is very different both in features and functionality from a brand new G1000 rolling off the production line today.
Also, a lot of the fatalities didn't come from people over-relying on the technology. They came from people not knowing how to correctly use the system or interpret failure modes when problems occurred.
The problem with endorsements is that the systems are too varied to be of much use.
A person might be an expert in G1000s but not know anything about Avidynes, or vice versa. So would endorsements be needed for one specific system, or all glass cockpits in general? To throw another wrench in to the mix, the same system can be considerably different based on software installation. A G1000 from 2004 is very different both in features and functionality from a brand new G1000 rolling off the production line today.
Also, a lot of the fatalities didn't come from people over-relying on the technology. They came from people not knowing how to correctly use the system or interpret failure modes when problems occurred.
Timbo
Well-Known Member
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
As usual, they have missed the real problem here completely.
The "Probem" is not what type of glass do you have, and are you trained on it, the Problem is with any type of Glass, you have a false sense of confidence, that now you can boldly go into weather where no weekend warrior should be going in the first place, because you have Glass, and the WX channel and XM Radio too! It's so easy any idiot can do it, so a lot of them do!
It's the same when you have a guy who first gets his Inst. rating, then he thinks he can safely fly in any weather, anywhere, anytime... in a single engine airplane. Now, give him glass and an autopilot, you wonder why there are more fatalities? Brilliant!
As my IP told me when I got my inst. rating, "Unless you are going to stay current, and fly in wx all the time, and keep your skills sharp, this is just a license to kill yourself." Remember JFK Jr? He had a really nice airplane with lots of fancy stuff...too bad he didn't know how to fly on instruments.
Glass is good, but it won't save you from yourself.
As usual, they have missed the real problem here completely.
The "Probem" is not what type of glass do you have, and are you trained on it, the Problem is with any type of Glass, you have a false sense of confidence, that now you can boldly go into weather where no weekend warrior should be going in the first place, because you have Glass, and the WX channel and XM Radio too! It's so easy any idiot can do it, so a lot of them do!
It's the same when you have a guy who first gets his Inst. rating, then he thinks he can safely fly in any weather, anywhere, anytime... in a single engine airplane. Now, give him glass and an autopilot, you wonder why there are more fatalities? Brilliant!
As my IP told me when I got my inst. rating, "Unless you are going to stay current, and fly in wx all the time, and keep your skills sharp, this is just a license to kill yourself." Remember JFK Jr? He had a really nice airplane with lots of fancy stuff...too bad he didn't know how to fly on instruments.
Glass is good, but it won't save you from yourself.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
Ah, ok. Its too early in the morning for my reading comprehension skills to be where they should. I've flown 4 different types of glass panels. Each was simple to operate after an hour of flight. Each had their quirks, each had trouble area's that could be encountered.
I think one big key here is, pilot's need to recognize their limits. I did my instrument training on a glass panel. Do I feel comfortable flying a G1000/Avidyne in IMC, absolutely. Would I feel comfortable jumping in a conventional panel, taking off on a solid IMC trip, with an approach to minimum's, probably not. People need to recognize their limits, and respect them.
Ah, ok. Its too early in the morning for my reading comprehension skills to be where they should. I've flown 4 different types of glass panels. Each was simple to operate after an hour of flight. Each had their quirks, each had trouble area's that could be encountered.
I think one big key here is, pilot's need to recognize their limits. I did my instrument training on a glass panel. Do I feel comfortable flying a G1000/Avidyne in IMC, absolutely. Would I feel comfortable jumping in a conventional panel, taking off on a solid IMC trip, with an approach to minimum's, probably not. People need to recognize their limits, and respect them.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
I completely disagree. I've discussed this at length in other threads, so I don't feel like re-hashing it all here again.
There are certainly weekend warriors who fly glass panel aircraft, but there are also a lot of proficient, sharp pilots using them. I deal with glass panel training day in and day out, and I think the NTSB recommendations are spot on.
I completely disagree. I've discussed this at length in other threads, so I don't feel like re-hashing it all here again.
There are certainly weekend warriors who fly glass panel aircraft, but there are also a lot of proficient, sharp pilots using them. I deal with glass panel training day in and day out, and I think the NTSB recommendations are spot on.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
No. I'm saying what I've said for a long time now...industry-wide, glass panel training is lacking.
Glass panels have the potential to be more dangerous than a conventional panel if the pilot does not receive proper training. Glass panel aircraft will, however, be significantly safer than conventional panels if the pilot receives a thorough checkout.
No. I'm saying what I've said for a long time now...industry-wide, glass panel training is lacking.
Glass panels have the potential to be more dangerous than a conventional panel if the pilot does not receive proper training. Glass panel aircraft will, however, be significantly safer than conventional panels if the pilot receives a thorough checkout.
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
Dirty Harry once said "A man's got to know his limitations."
It's good advice!
Dirty Harry once said "A man's got to know his limitations."
It's good advice!
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
I remember when the King and Garmin GPS's first came out in 172's, and the RAIM light meant exactly opposite things on the two avionics. Kind of an important thing the industry refused to standardize at the time. Wish someone would look more into avionics standards and set a benchmark rather than trying to push for us to get signed off on every stupid system that pops up next.
I remember when the King and Garmin GPS's first came out in 172's, and the RAIM light meant exactly opposite things on the two avionics. Kind of an important thing the industry refused to standardize at the time. Wish someone would look more into avionics standards and set a benchmark rather than trying to push for us to get signed off on every stupid system that pops up next.
Timbo
Well-Known Member
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
OK, so what is causing these fatal accidents? If he's flying his glass in VFR weather, and he's not sure how it all works, or the thing dies on him, not a problem, right?
If on the other hand, he's flying in IMC, and he's not sure, well, why was he there in the first place? "My Wonder Glass will protect me..." No jackass, it won't, I don't care how well you've been trained on it, when it dies, it's useless.
What's the backup power source in a SEL when the alternator belt decides to let go? How long will it power the glass?
My point is, I don't care which panel you've been trained on, if you only fly in real IFR once a year, or less, you are going to die when the weather really goes down the toilet, glass just allowed you to take off thinking you knew what you were doing, because it's so easy to fly glass.
How about taking an instrument check ride with the FAA, immediately prior to flying in real IFR weather? If you can't do that and pass with no problem you've got no business being out there. That would make more sense than different training for every kind of glass out there, and then never flying IFR but that one time...
Flying is a skill you must learn, but then you must practice, or you lose the skills. Flying in IFR is more so. Like any skill, Golf, Tennis, etc, the more you do it, the better you will be. These guys who are dying? I'm guessing they didn't fly much real IFR. Like I said earlier, Glass gives you a false sense of security, because it's -too easy-.
We have guys in the airline world who have flown glass on the 757 or 777 for years, and then they have trouble checking out on the DC9, because glass is almost -too easy- to fly. It will ruin your scan, that is for certain. When I flew the 757 every once in a while I would put the glass into -old school- vor mode, just so I could remember how it's done.
OK, so what is causing these fatal accidents? If he's flying his glass in VFR weather, and he's not sure how it all works, or the thing dies on him, not a problem, right?
If on the other hand, he's flying in IMC, and he's not sure, well, why was he there in the first place? "My Wonder Glass will protect me..." No jackass, it won't, I don't care how well you've been trained on it, when it dies, it's useless.
What's the backup power source in a SEL when the alternator belt decides to let go? How long will it power the glass?
My point is, I don't care which panel you've been trained on, if you only fly in real IFR once a year, or less, you are going to die when the weather really goes down the toilet, glass just allowed you to take off thinking you knew what you were doing, because it's so easy to fly glass.
How about taking an instrument check ride with the FAA, immediately prior to flying in real IFR weather? If you can't do that and pass with no problem you've got no business being out there. That would make more sense than different training for every kind of glass out there, and then never flying IFR but that one time...
Flying is a skill you must learn, but then you must practice, or you lose the skills. Flying in IFR is more so. Like any skill, Golf, Tennis, etc, the more you do it, the better you will be. These guys who are dying? I'm guessing they didn't fly much real IFR. Like I said earlier, Glass gives you a false sense of security, because it's -too easy-.
We have guys in the airline world who have flown glass on the 757 or 777 for years, and then they have trouble checking out on the DC9, because glass is almost -too easy- to fly. It will ruin your scan, that is for certain. When I flew the 757 every once in a while I would put the glass into -old school- vor mode, just so I could remember how it's done.
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
I fly 4 different G1000 DA40s and there are three different versions of software mixed between them. Overall the PFD stays the same except when adding Synthetic Vision. The MFD just tends to have some slight changes, usually with the Systems page. I would say hopping between the three wouldn't be a big deal, as far as going G1000 to Avadyne, it is definitely interesting when you have no previous experience with it. Just ask Complex about me trying to work the 430's and Avadyne for some practice approaches with no previous training.
I fly 4 different G1000 DA40s and there are three different versions of software mixed between them. Overall the PFD stays the same except when adding Synthetic Vision. The MFD just tends to have some slight changes, usually with the Systems page. I would say hopping between the three wouldn't be a big deal, as far as going G1000 to Avadyne, it is definitely interesting when you have no previous experience with it. Just ask Complex about me trying to work the 430's and Avadyne for some practice approaches with no previous training.
African_Swallow
Well-Known Member
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
This would be appropriate for IFR ops--on an IFR plan or more specifically in IMC. I would favor required training within the previous 6? months to be PIC of an a/c with a Garmin/Avidyne/KLN/etc., not necessarily in the airplane. Haven't checked, but I wager to guess that these fatal accidents with glass cockpits are in IMC.
For VFR ops, I provide complete training for my students, but, honestly, if they know how to tune the radio, find and use the transponder (e.g., G1000), and handle basic electrical emergencies, I'm essentially happy letting them fly it...with emphasis on "do not learn more about this piece of equipment while you are flying the plane--use the downloadable training software, or have someone else fly while you play."
-A.S>
This would be appropriate for IFR ops--on an IFR plan or more specifically in IMC. I would favor required training within the previous 6? months to be PIC of an a/c with a Garmin/Avidyne/KLN/etc., not necessarily in the airplane. Haven't checked, but I wager to guess that these fatal accidents with glass cockpits are in IMC.
For VFR ops, I provide complete training for my students, but, honestly, if they know how to tune the radio, find and use the transponder (e.g., G1000), and handle basic electrical emergencies, I'm essentially happy letting them fly it...with emphasis on "do not learn more about this piece of equipment while you are flying the plane--use the downloadable training software, or have someone else fly while you play."
-A.S>
Timbo
Well-Known Member
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
From the NTSB report above:
The report further showed that pilots of aircraft equipped with electronic Primary Flight Displays involved in accidents were older, had more flying hours, were more likely to hold Instrument ratings and be flying in IMC, and at the time of the accident, likely were flying a longer range mission than accident pilots flying airplanes with round dial instruments.
OK, lets focus on that statement for a minute. Who does that sound like to you? A new kid who just got his instrument ticket in a 172, or a Doctor who just paid $200,000 for an IFR single with glass and an autopilot, who takes his family to Colorado for a ski weekend even though it's snowing like a mutha and he hasn't flown instruments in a while? But hey, he spent a fortune on this aiplane and the condo in Aspen and he told his wife the airplane could do it, and it probably could, but could he?
You see, with round dials, you as the doctor might say to yourself, "I haven't done this in a while, and flying instruments is hard, I don't know if this is such a good idea..." But Glass makes it so easy, he's much more likely to go. The glass itself won't kill you, obviously, but it will make you think you are better than you are. Either way, you have to practice -a lot- if you want to be safe.
From the NTSB report above:
The report further showed that pilots of aircraft equipped with electronic Primary Flight Displays involved in accidents were older, had more flying hours, were more likely to hold Instrument ratings and be flying in IMC, and at the time of the accident, likely were flying a longer range mission than accident pilots flying airplanes with round dial instruments.
OK, lets focus on that statement for a minute. Who does that sound like to you? A new kid who just got his instrument ticket in a 172, or a Doctor who just paid $200,000 for an IFR single with glass and an autopilot, who takes his family to Colorado for a ski weekend even though it's snowing like a mutha and he hasn't flown instruments in a while? But hey, he spent a fortune on this aiplane and the condo in Aspen and he told his wife the airplane could do it, and it probably could, but could he?
You see, with round dials, you as the doctor might say to yourself, "I haven't done this in a while, and flying instruments is hard, I don't know if this is such a good idea..." But Glass makes it so easy, he's much more likely to go. The glass itself won't kill you, obviously, but it will make you think you are better than you are. Either way, you have to practice -a lot- if you want to be safe.
Goldmember
Well-Known Member
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
Let insurance decide? Umm, no thanks, if insurance had their way, all airplanes would be fixed gear, single engine, and there would be no such thing as ACTUAL IFR unless it were done in a sim.
Let insurance decide? Umm, no thanks, if insurance had their way, all airplanes would be fixed gear, single engine, and there would be no such thing as ACTUAL IFR unless it were done in a sim.
Douglas
Old School KSUX
Re: NTSB Discusses Safety of Glass Cockpits in Small Aircraf
True. (my opinion)
(my opinions aside) I'm flat out curious how do you propose that to happen. You support their decision, but what decision? Was it the decision to strike the make and model endorsement or no endorsement in general?
If you are for more training, the FAA can bring that on in two ways, either by endorsement or during certificate training. Do you see another that I am not?
True. (my opinion)
(my opinions aside) I'm flat out curious how do you propose that to happen. You support their decision, but what decision? Was it the decision to strike the make and model endorsement or no endorsement in general?
If you are for more training, the FAA can bring that on in two ways, either by endorsement or during certificate training. Do you see another that I am not?