Flying a Glass Cockpit: Is it Safer?

Doug Taylor said:
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! ;)
Click to expand...

I agree, I would even go further. Basic airspeed, altimeter, compass, handheld radio and that's about it! What a J-3 came with, stock, should cover it. Curious about your mapshift comment, are you talking about the FMS map shift or is there something about the AHRS that I am unfamiliar? I've never flown that, just went straight to the MD-11 with the full 4th generation cockpit. Looks like the A-380 will be the first transport aircraft built that will have actual higher levels information, i.e, 5th generation glass (as opposed to just different sets of choices we have in the 777 and A 340 now). The MD-11 will be the peak for total automation, it appears, since both Airbus and Boeing don't want to take it that far.

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...

Are you quite sure about that? ;-)

Still, they are more reliable, lighter, and provide a lot more information than steam guages, no question that they increase safey as long as the training is adequate and the pilots understand when LOWER levels of automation should be used to reduce workload!
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
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.
Click to expand...


Remove the FD and don't turn on the AP. I do that at LEAST once or twice a week. Hell, visual approaches in the CRJ, the FD will hurt more than help 90% of the time. Belive it or not, you can turn a glass cockpit plane into something more than a system to manage. :)
 
kellwolf said:
Remove the FD and don't turn on the AP. I do that at LEAST once or twice a week. Hell, visual approaches in the CRJ, the FD will hurt more than help 90% of the time. Belive it or not, you can turn a glass cockpit plane into something more than a system to manage. :)
Click to expand...

Wow thanks didn't know that. Do your captains eagerly allow this because your a low time on the jet.

But again good to know one can do that. I would hate to flip the AP at 500 AGL. Then go manual on a 3 mile final.
 
seagull said:
Curious about your mapshift comment, are you talking about the FMS map shift or is there something about the AHRS that I am unfamiliar?
Click to expand...

The skinny on map####.

We had AHRS-equipped MD-88's and we had IRU-equipped MD-88s and 90's.

On hte AHRS MD-88's below 10,000' at times, the map would skew 20 to 45 degrees off of the track and sometimes go into "MAP FAIL" mode where it wasn't usable. I don't know if it was interference, a systems failure or whatever, but quite frankly it sucked and if you weren't familiar with the system and it's limitations on arrival, it could be dangerous.

What I'm afraid of are low-time pilots hopping in G1000 cockpits and figure that they have an extra margin of safety and go traipsing off into weather beyond their capabilities with the false premise that they're in a safer, glass-cockpit aircraft.
 
There is a good chance of that, just magnifies the "doctor" syndrome a bit. That glass is a great way to show where the weather is, but in a little airplane, even with radar, and even assuming proper training, that small dish is so limiting that you just can't trust it too far.

As for turning it off, yes, you can. Workload goes up on both pilots, obviously. PM is much busier in all respects. I do it once in a while also, although I hand fly often, and just look through the FD, generally.
 
It's probably all perspective too. If I owned a small single-engine aircraft, I want a basic VFR package. If the weather is bad, I'm not going flying because single-engine IFR is nuts.

If my situational awareness is going to be so low that I need to depend on EFIS, chances are that I shouldn't be flying anyway and the aircraft can't perform anyway.

But that's just my personal opinion.
 
seagull said:
As for turning it off, yes, you can. Workload goes up on both pilots, obviously. PM is much busier in all respects. I do it once in a while also, although I hand fly often, and just look through the FD, generally.
Click to expand...

Oh thats cool.I always heard that the MD-11 is hard to hand fly due to all it's automation. *Think* it is the most automated plane out there.
 
Most McD'D aircraft are a challenge to fly. This trip I'm watching a former 737-300 Captain trying to fly an MD-90 and it's quite entertaining.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
Wow thanks didn't know that. Do your captains eagerly allow this because your a low time on the jet.

But again good to know one can do that. I would hate to flip the AP at 500 AGL. Then go manual on a 3 mile final.
Click to expand...


Actually, they sorta encourage it. Hand flying gives you a better feel for the airplane. You kinda lose touch when you do "600 ft, AP on, USA Today out." I had one IOE captain that had me hand fly up to cruising altitude (FL280) without the FD. Dude, that thing gets TOUCHY the higher you go.

Him: Okay, now go from 800 fpm to 500 fpm
Me: Sure.....uh, okay there's....no that's 300....uh, 900....200.....damn.

Most of the guys I fly with (and myself) will hand fly to at least 10K unless it's the sixth leg of the day and the third or fourth day in a row. Then the AP comes on at around 4-6K. :)
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
Oh thats cool.I always heard that the MD-11 is hard to hand fly due to all it's automation. *Think* it is the most automated plane out there.
Click to expand...

No "thinking" about it, it absolutely is. It's not a bad flying airplane, but you're not without handling quality augmentation ordinarily. If you really lost everything then the airplane would be tougher to fly because it would be much less statically and dynamically stable in pitch than most anything out there. See my article on the home page here under "safety", it's discussed in that.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
Sounds fun...lol!!!
Click to expand...

Me: "Don't hit execute...wait wait wait. Augh! Dang... don't worry I'll....wait... you've got a crossing restriction, go ahead and... no, don't VNAV that, wait... auuuugh!"
 
Doug Taylor said:
Me: "Don't hit execute...wait wait wait. Augh! Dang... don't worry I'll....wait... you've got a crossing restriction, go ahead and... no, don't VNAV that, wait... auuuugh!"
Click to expand...

How long has he been in the left seat of the 90? Sounds like only a few weeks if that....
 
Doug Taylor said:
What I'm afraid of are low-time pilots hopping in G1000 cockpits and figure that they have an extra margin of safety and go traipsing off into weather beyond their capabilities with the false premise that they're in a safer, glass-cockpit aircraft.
Click to expand...


I flew the G1000 up to Cheyenne last night and the nexrad radar came in handy big time. It was all VFR but as we headed back south there was some pretty funky lightning storms out there. I brought it up on MFD and you could see that there was about a 10 mile wide cell right in our path. It was probably high base and wouldn't really affect our VFR wx mins but it was still nice to be able to see it and go around it.

Great technology, and as long as people get the correct training in it, I think it can do nothing but bring safety up.

I at least got a more comfortable ride out of it last night :)
 
Doug Taylor said:
It's probably all perspective too. If I owned a small single-engine aircraft, I want a basic VFR package. If the weather is bad, I'm not going flying because single-engine IFR is nuts.
Click to expand...

I do it all the time. I've had major engine failure in a C310 at 11,000 going into John Wayne in solid IMC. I am gonna go out on a limb and say in light twins, engine failure in IMC can be more catastrophic and more of a controllability issue than in a single.

I love flying twins but light, general aviation twins present real problems when an engine is lost in flight - especially in IMC, low altitude and high power situations, and high density altitude.

Not trying to debate you at all but what about large single engine turbine aircraft such as the PC-12, Meridian, or TBM 700/850 which all fly at or above FL300 at 300 knots? They are built for long hauls in weather. The PC-12 is used for airline service in some locations.

Thoughts?
 
Timbuff10 said:
I flew the G1000 up to Cheyenne last night and the nexrad radar came in handy big time. It was all VFR but as we headed back south there was some pretty funky lightning storms out there. I brought it up on MFD and you could see that there was about a 10 mile wide cell right in our path. It was probably high base and wouldn't really affect our VFR wx mins but it was still nice to be able to see it and go around it.

Great technology, and as long as people get the correct training in it, I think it can do nothing but bring safety up.

I at least got a more comfortable ride out of it last night :)
Click to expand...

Flying under 'em is just as dangerous as flying in 'em and over 'em :). The G1000 is a great system and can provide excellent weather intel and situational awareness if you use it right.
 
I get landings, more than I want. And he's going to be getting a "six month check" because he failed a part of his upgrade training.

Heavy on opinion, light on experience, oh joy.

Can you tell that it's either time to upgrade or time to move on to another aircraft type? :)
 
I'm high mins but I trade legs. Am I doing something wrong? Like, I should take all the legs just to get off high mins faster? That's not very nice....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top