Flying a Glass Cockpit: Is it Safer?

meritflyer said:
The only gyro(s) in a glass cockpit is a turn coordinator that is associated with the AP other than the stand by AI.
Click to expand...

Depends on the cockpit.

A solid state AHRS system will have no gyro's to fail, which is what the G1000 system is. An older EFIS system like you'll find in a DC-9 still has gyro's even though it's displayed through a tube driven screen up front.
 
John Herreshoff said:
Depends on the cockpit.

A solid state AHRS system will have no gyro's to fail, which is what the G1000 system is.
Click to expand...

Right. The G1000 when coupled with the King AP has 2 gyroscopic instruments - a turn coordinator behind the panel for bank guidance along with the back up AI. All of the attitude, bank, and heading information for the glass is provided by accelerometers and lasers - not gyros.
 
meritflyer said:
The only gyro(s) in a glass cockpit is a turn coordinator that is associated with the AP other than the stand by AI.
Click to expand...

We've got "laser ring gyros" in the MD-88/90.

You have to have gyros or accelerometers in order to produce attitude information - if there's something else, please educate me.

AHRS systems aren't all that hot because they're subject to "map shift" and that's not all that fun when you're in the soup on arrival.
 
meritflyer said:
Right. The G1000 when coupled with the King AP has 2 gyroscopic instruments - a turn coordinator behind the panel for bank guidance along with the back up AI. All of the attitude, bank, and heading information for the glass is provided by accelerometers and lasers - not gyros.
Click to expand...

Right, but Doug's airplane has gyro's that send information to the EFIS displays up front.
 
Doug Taylor said:
We've got "laser ring gyros" in the MD-88/90.

You have to have gyros or accelerometers in order to produce attitude information.
Click to expand...

The glass I am most familiar with the G1000, has accelerometers and laser guidance for the AHRS.
 
There are many arguments we can have about it, but all in all I fully believe a glass cockpit is more safe than a cockpit full of old steam gauges. I have flown both, and my college degree actually dealt with this subject in great detail. With a glass cockpit, you just can present more information in a smaller space, plus the way you can arrange the information in the display can give the pilot better situational awareness. Once you fly a glass cockpit for a while, you will never go back...
 
FlyChicaga said:
There are many arguments we can have about it, but all in all I fully believe a glass cockpit is more safe than a cockpit full of old steam gauges. I have flown both, and my college degree actually dealt with this subject in great detail. With a glass cockpit, you just can present more information in a smaller space, plus the way you can arrange the information in the display can give the pilot better situational awareness. Once you fly a glass cockpit for a while, you will never go back...
Click to expand...

Agreed. But a pilot flying a DC-8/9/10 or classic B727,737,747 will prolly enjoy FLYING the plane more then he might enjoy "system managing" a plane glass cockpit equip plane.
 
Call me crazy but I have much more interest in the avionics and systems of a aircraft then I care how fast it goes or its climb perfomance.
 
Champcar said:
Call me crazy but I have much more interest in the avionics and systems of a aircraft then I care how fast it goes or its climb perfomance.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I am completely amazed at the new glass decks. Although, I do have the need for atleast a little speed.
 
Glass cockpit in an airliner, basic IFR "six pack" in a private aircraft. If I've got to shoot an approach, I'm getting paid! ;)
 
Can't comment on the "flyability", but I do have a couple of questions...

Does Garmin publish any MTBF numbers for the components?

I ask this because I'm interested in the comparisons between the G1K/Avidyne stuff vs. commercial-grade computer components. Do glass cockpit systems rely on any kind of hard drive? Because you have to worry about head crash and no amount of re-booting in the world will help that. Burned LCD pixels? Replacement costs? Etc...

Supplemental questions: I've read that most aircraft shipping with G1Ks have completely DUAL electrical systems, which is good. But are they also running "cleaner" electrical systems? Computers are notoriously sensitive to voltage irregularities.
 
killbilly said:
Can't comment on the "flyability", but I do have a couple of questions...

Does Garmin publish any MTBF numbers for the components?

I ask this because I'm interested in the comparisons between the G1K/Avidyne stuff vs. commercial-grade computer components. Do glass cockpit systems rely on any kind of hard drive? Because you have to worry about head crash and no amount of re-booting in the world will help that. Burned LCD pixels? Replacement costs? Etc...

Supplemental questions: I've read that most aircraft shipping with G1Ks have completely DUAL electrical systems, which is good. But are they also running "cleaner" electrical systems? Computers are notoriously sensitive to voltage irregularities.
Click to expand...

You know that if it was less reliable, from a stastical standpoint, than steam gauges the FAA would have never certified it right?

And I think glass cockpits are less sensitive to voltage irregularities than vacum pumps are to low pressure area irregularities (which cause them to sheer).
 
John Herreshoff said:
You know that if it was less reliable, from a stastical standpoint, than steam gauges the FAA would have never certified it right?

And I think glass cockpits are less sensitive to voltage irregularities than vacum pumps are to low pressure area irregularities (which cause them to sheer).
Click to expand...
Oh, I believe this, and I agree. But 'less reliable' is subjective when you're talking about 10-12K hours MTBF. I don't know how systemic redundancies are handled in a glass-cockpit setup, but I've seen enough bad hard drives and processors coming out of various taiwanese supply shops that make me wonder how Garmin is sourcing the components, and to what spec.

Irregularities (in manufacturing) can be corrected, but usually only after the failure has been identified.

Here's a question, then:

In the training that one receives for glass-cockpit systems, does it include training in how to restart the system if it goes down in flight? Does it teach you how to fly the airplane on backups when it does fail? Does it teach troubleshooting, et al? How about if you lose the remote keyboard option (which comes on the Columbias and a few others lately?)

Does GC training teach you to both use and get around the GC if you lose it?
 
killbilly said:
Oh, I believe this, and I agree. But 'less reliable' is subjective when you're talking about 10-12K hours MTBF. I don't know how systemic redundancies are handled in a glass-cockpit setup, but I've seen enough bad hard drives and processors coming out of various taiwanese supply shops that make me wonder how Garmin is sourcing the components, and to what spec.

Irregularities (in manufacturing) can be corrected, but usually only after the failure has been identified.

Here's a question, then:

In the training that one receives for glass-cockpit systems, does it include training in how to restart the system if it goes down in flight? Does it teach you how to fly the airplane on backups when it does fail? Does it teach troubleshooting, et al? How about if you lose the remote keyboard option (which comes on the Columbias and a few others lately?)

Does GC training teach you to both use and get around the GC if you lose it?
Click to expand...
These glass panels are not running off of Windows or a home built PC. Yes they teach you how to fly on the backups, troubleshooting is easy just reset circuit breakers. The keyboard in the Columbia just make entering data easier, but you can still enter data with the knobs. They have thought everything through.
 
Champcar said:
These glass panels are not running off of Windows or a home built PC. Yes they teach you how to fly on the backups, troubleshooting is easy just reset circuit breakers. The keyboard in the Columbia just make entering data easier, but you can still enter data with the knobs. They have thought everything through.
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was Windows CE or anything (I wouldn't use one, ever, if they did) but I am curious: is the O/S proprietary or are they running a Garmin-ized flavor of Linux or what?
 
Garmin runs Linux (dunno what flavor, kernel, or even if it's BSD, Linux, Unix or whatever other *nix you can dream up), but I'd be willing to bet Collins has their own OS.

I assure you that all of the things you're asking have been taken care of. If they had not been then aircraft would be falling out of the sky on a daily basis.
 
John Herreshoff said:
Garmin runs Linux (dunno what flavor, kernel, or even if it's BSD, Linux, Unix or whatever other *nix you can dream up), but I'd be willing to bet Collins has their own OS.

I assure you that all of the things you're asking have been taken care of. If they had not been then aircraft would be falling out of the sky on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

Call it academic interest. It just amuses the heck out of me that the fundamental software engines that drive the avionics suites for glass cockpits also drive the telephony servers that I work with. Just funny, I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top