Is it just me or does this look a little nuts?

[MikeD]

I don't believe this is too much glass. Glass is here to stay and it is not going away. It's safer. It's easier.

Disagree with the bold. Thats not quantifiable. "Safer" and "Easier" are relative terms. Like anything, it depends.

There are many benefits to it that far exceed any of the old steam gauges.

And vice versa, which is pilot dependant.

However, with that being said, if you don't know how to fly glass then you should not fly glass.

Glass cockpits require that you know how to use them. All that technology will not do you any good if you don't know how to use it.

Joe

True, and for guys trained primarily on glass, the inverse is true too. The lack of technology won't do you much good if you don't know how to use it OR aren't familiar/comfortable with it.

 

[jhugz]

Disagree with the bold. Thats not quantifiable. "Safer" and "Easier" are relative terms. Like anything, it depends.

Like anything else, you need to be trained properly whether that be something as basic as a 430 or a G1000 setup. If trained properly glass is much "safer" & "easier" as it creates more SA. More SA = More Safety in Flight.

And for the record I think doing your instrument rating in a G1000 airplane is fine as long as they receive training in the standard 6 pack before blasting off into 500OVC.

 

[MikeD]

Like anything else, you need to be trained properly whether that be something as basic as a 430 or a G1000 setup. If trained properly glass is much "safer" & "easier" as it creates more SA. More SA = More Safety in Flight.

.

Again, safer and easier are relative terms. The same can be applied to steam as it can be applied to glass. One isn't any more safe or easy than the other. They're equally different skill sets. What you're failing to understand is that SA is person dependant, not system dependant. Glass doesn't create SA, it simply provides info....same as with steam gauges. It's the individual person who has the abilty to take on and utilize that info, or not.

 

[tonyw]

I'll bet people had the same discussion back in the day. Those damn kids! Flying around with those fancy VORs! I mean, they don't even know how to fly with an ADF anymore. Or hell, even with the ADFs. Damn rookies! Don't know how to fly using a four direction signal. Sheesh, they're going to kill themselves.

If someone's getting their private ticket, they should be flying by looking outside the window anyway, so glass, six pack, whatever, it doesn't matter.

 

[queeno]

Again, safer and easier are relative terms. The same can be applied to steam as it can be applied to glass. One isn't any more safe or easy than the other. They're equally different skill sets. What you're failing to understand is that SA is person dependant, not system dependant. Glass doesn't create SA, it simply provides info....same as with steam gauges. It's the individual person who has the abilty to take on and utilize that info, or not.

keep pitching Mike it may set in with some of them,you are correct its not the equiptment that provides the SA it is the person that uses the information that causes the SA or lack of SA.this is true in flying as well as ATC.when i was flying my old PA32 with the steam gauges and an early garmen GPS on the wheel with both VFR and IFR charts i had the same info the fancy glass has but in diffrent places.as a side note before i retired the pilots that seem to have the least clue on the radio were the SR22.could be the old more money than brains kind of like the V Tails of the past.

OG

 

[WacoFan]

I would like to counter that picture with this.....REAL flying

I am really disgusted and outraged by this post. I mean...seriously, this is just insanely dangerous and serves no purpose at all in creating what any thinking person would call a "safe pilot".

Seriously, what can one learn with only "needle, ball and airspeed"? Without the modern glass, the student in this "airplane" will have to learn to rely on "feel" to keep coordinated in turns, with not much more than his butt sliding across the seat to tell him to use more rudder. With so little to look at inside the airplane, they will be forced to look outside - distracting them with a lot of peripheral information that they don't really need - I mean, how safe is it to rely on the human eyeball for traffic avoidance when you could have technology do it for you? Just how would someone navigate in this machine? Maps??? How 20th century. Also, it looks as if the door and window are open - again, dangerous. What if you were to catch a cold while flying? What if you are overtaken by a flock of mockingbirds and one flies inside (which could happen in a Cub)?

Overall I think you need to get with the program and stop advocating this kind of dangerous behavior. And don't get me started on tailwheels...

 

[v1valarob]

What a fun video it would be to watch the examiner get in and say "Ok, lets go ahead and ask for the ILS full approach into blah blah blah." :E reaches over and turns all the screens down:: "Oh, and your monitors just died."

I did my IFR training in a Seminole with a G430, and that is spoiled compared to what I get now at my 121 carrier. I would be real interested to see how a person that trains in something like this, does on an interview with the sim portion in a Beech 1900.

 

[jrh]

What a fun video it would be to watch the examiner get in and say "Ok, lets go ahead and ask for the ILS full approach into blah blah blah." :E reaches over and turns all the screens down:: "Oh, and your monitors just died."

That'd be pretty hilarious....if it ever actually happened.

I put that level of failure on the same level as, "Ok, we're going to fly the full procedure ILS approach...with your engine on fire!"

Sure, it can theoretically happen, but it's a ridiculously slim possibility. It's kind of like training for a double engine failure in a twin. If a situation is ever that dire, you're screwed no matter what.

I did my IFR training in a Seminole with a G430, and that is spoiled compared to what I get now at my 121 carrier. I would be real interested to see how a person that trains in something like this, does on an interview with the sim portion in a Beech 1900.

Good argument if everyone learns to fly with the goal of flying Beech 1900s at a 121 carrier. Thankfully, that's not reality.

 

[ctab5060X]

What a fun video it would be to watch the examiner get in and say "Ok, lets go ahead and ask for the ILS full approach into blah blah blah." :E reaches over and turns all the screens down:: "Oh, and your monitors just died."

That'd be pretty hilarious....if it ever actually happened.

I put that level of failure on the same level as, "Ok, we're going to fly the full procedure ILS approach...with your engine on fire!"

Sure, it can theoretically happen, but it's a ridiculously slim possibility. It's kind of like training for a double engine failure in a twin. If a situation is ever that dire, you're screwed no matter what.

If a full system failure is "a ridiculously slim possibility", then why do we train for ISI only approaches? Reason... full system failures do happen. If we train for events like this, the one time it does happen you don't end up "screwed no matter what".

I did my IFR training in a Seminole with a G430, and that is spoiled compared to what I get now at my 121 carrier. I would be real interested to see how a person that trains in something like this, does on an interview with the sim portion in a Beech 1900.

Good argument if everyone learns to fly with the goal of flying Beech 1900s at a 121 carrier. Thankfully, that's not reality.

But a reality is they might someday be flying something along the lines of the CRJ/ERJ line. What is shown in that picture is more information and "glass" compared to what I have in front of me every day.

I agree that we should embrace the technology available to us as pilots, but at the same time, we should fully understand the workings behind the technology, and know what to do if the technology ever fails.

 

[TXaviator]

That'd be pretty hilarious....if it ever actually happened.

I put that level of failure on the same level as, "Ok, we're going to fly the full procedure ILS approach...with your engine on fire!"

Sure, it can theoretically happen, but it's a ridiculously slim possibility. It's kind of like training for a double engine failure in a twin. If a situation is ever that dire, you're screwed no matter what.

i agree with the reliability fallacy being garbage.... solid state tech is WAY more reliable than VOR needles and junk like that. totally agreed.

Good argument if everyone learns to fly with the goal of flying Beech 1900s at a 121 carrier. Thankfully, that's not reality.

but waaaaait a second... have we not seen "plans" change DRASTICALLY in the last 3 years?

yeah UND also says "train for the airlines!!" and well, NO ONE going through that program is gonna see an all glass shiny jet cockpit for a long, long time now.

i got out and jumped into a beat up '74 skyhawk with 1 nav/comm. and im one of the lucky ones.

 

[Kestrel452]

I put that level of failure on the same level as, "Ok, we're going to fly the full procedure ILS approach...with your engine on fire!"

Sure, it can theoretically happen, but it's a ridiculously slim possibility. It's kind of like training for a double engine failure in a twin. If a situation is ever that dire, you're screwed no matter what.

Backup gauges, bro. You're not screwed unless you haven't been trained to fly using them.

 

[element94]

I agree that we should embrace the technology available to us as pilots, but at the same time, we should fully understand the workings behind the technology, and know what to do if the technology ever fails.

What evidence do you have that glass reduces emergency procedure preparedness?

Hell, Sully had been flying glass exclusively for years before his little mishap with geese. It certainly didn't make him complacent when he lost his engines -- and with the proper amount of experience, no pilot should be unprepared in an emergency. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the information presented is in digital or analog format. It almost seems a ridiculous argument to me.

 

[JOEFRIDAY2]

Oh my goodness folks. I learned to fly on steam gauges just like most folks did. That was what we used prior to 2005!

Then the glass cockpits came in. What a difference. I'll say it again. If you know how to use the glass cockpit, it is safer and easier to fly the plane for many reasons. In an emergency, the glass cockpit can make your workload much lighter. That can never happen with steam gauges.

If you are trained properly in a glass cockpit, you are trained to fly the aircraft with partial or full panel failure. In fact, on your practical test, your examiner will probably simulate a partial panel failure.

So for those that say you can't fly the plane if the glass fails, that simply is not true if you have been trained properly.

Glass panels are here to stay. You might as well get used to it because they aren't going away.

I guess someone could learn to drive today in a 57 Chevy with a manual transmission. However I don't think that makes them a better driver than someone learning to drive in a 2010 Chevy.

My recommendation is to learn the glass cockpit.


Joe

 

[jrh]

Backup gauges, bro. You're not screwed unless you haven't been trained to fly using them.

Backup gauges do not provide any means of electronic navigation. All you can do is fly a heading and find VFR conditions. Failing both screens and expecting the pilot to fly an ILS is absolutely unrealistic. There's no way to do it. There are no standby CDI needles.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

Backup gauges do not provide any means of electronic navigation. All you can do is fly a heading and find VFR conditions. Failing both screens and expecting the pilot to fly an ILS is absolutely unrealistic. There's no way to do it. There are no standby CDI needles.

Depends on what airplane your in...
our back up "ISIS" provides G/S and LOC in addition to heading, altitude and speed.

 

[MikeD]

I guess someone could learn to drive today in a 57 Chevy with a manual transmission. However I don't think that makes them a better driver than someone learning to drive in a 2010 Chevy.


Joe

And vice versa.

 

[aerospacepilot]

That's it. i'm buying an iPad. That looks so sweet!

 

[Muff3n]

I am all for having a glass cockpit airplane AFTER your PPL and IFR courses have been finished. Just like many people have said here I believe that the huge moving map really hurts your pilotage/ dead reckoning skills. I believe that at least during training, students should use more pilotage/ dead reckoning to help find out where they are and navigate.

The whole point of me saying this is when you have those big purdy screens and have a total electrical failure you will know where you are by looking out of the window. If all of your training has been done on glass cockpits I don't believe you develop the dead reckoning skills that a pilot that has been trained in a steam gauge airplane has.

 

[touch-n-go]

I am really disgusted and outraged by this post. I mean...seriously, this is just insanely dangerous and serves no purpose at all in creating what any thinking person would call a "safe pilot".

Seriously, what can one learn with only "needle, ball and airspeed"? Without the modern glass, the student in this "airplane" will have to learn to rely on "feel" to keep coordinated in turns, with not much more than his butt sliding across the seat to tell him to use more rudder. With so little to look at inside the airplane, they will be forced to look outside - distracting them with a lot of peripheral information that they don't really need - I mean, how safe is it to rely on the human eyeball for traffic avoidance when you could have technology do it for you? Just how would someone navigate in this machine? Maps??? How 20th century. Also, it looks as if the door and window are open - again, dangerous. What if you were to catch a cold while flying? What if you are overtaken by a flock of mockingbirds and one flies inside (which could happen in a Cub)?

Overall I think you need to get with the program and stop advocating this kind of dangerous behavior. And don't get me started on tailwheels...

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I Love it!!!

 

[CameronF]

I never would have thought this thread would have made it to 3 pages lol. People must not be having the best week...