Flying a Glass Cockpit: Is it Safer?

PanJet

PanJet

Well-Known Member
Okay, I actually saw this poll on King School's website, so I thought I'd pass it along to all the JCer's to get the consensus.

My vote is no. I don't believe a glass cockpit is safer. Easier, yes; safer, no. There are definately tradeoffs both ways. Glass cockpits offer little to no reliance on vacuum, but much more on electricity; a much more important system if you ask me. No vacuum, big deal, you fly partial panel; no juice, you're screwed (glass cockpit or no) unless you have a handheld radio with a CDI or a handheld GPS. I've actually had three electrical failures so far as a pilot, and zero vacuum failures. Although there are more built in systems like dual alternators and the like with glass cockpits, I believe they just put more reliance on one system.

However, I don't believe they are less safe. Obviously they have proven to be reliable, and we humans (at least western culture ones) put one heck of a lot of faith in the ever so important and mysterious electron that has proven us well for the most part. If electricity can be trusted with a life support machine in a hospital, why not in an airplane?

There's a lot more to go into, but basically I say no, they are not any safer. I feel just as safe behind a good old six pack with nav instruments as I would with glass.
 
I'm voting yes, to me easier = more safety. If you are spending less time tuning in VORs and playing with a chart and all that stuff then that is more time to be situationally aware of what is going on around you. Also the glass cockpit 172s that I have been flying have the TIS feature which I think is great and makes your chances of a mid air go way down. I know these can also be in traditional cockpits too though.

You can also look at the glass cockpit plane as having less things that can go wrong thus leading to other problems. Then again, you can say a 777 is more safe than a 747 because it has less engines that can flame out.

For me, glass is the way to go!
 
I think it has more to do with the systems with the glass panel. XM weather, GPWS, and Taffic are amazing to have. When you fly a plane with a Traffic system you realize how many close calls you have had and most likely never knew about.
 
I don't know how anyone could argue that position awareness is ever decreased because of a glass cockpit. "Automation addiction" and fooling around with the box instead of having one pilot fly the airplane instead of both heads down trying to figure it out is the downside, but if crews know they must avoid that trap, I'd argue that a glass cockpit is safer.

I was very surprised, however, to see statistics on altitude deviations broken down to devations per number of flights, comparing the A-320 to the DC-9. The steam gauge jet won by a landslide, as in, having far few deviations. Glass cockpits make some people lazy.
 
I would agree with both Nick and Sorrygottarunway. There is no decrease in safety, however pilots can't be lazy just because the system does more for the pilot than the old steam/vacuum gauges; and it all boils down to how well the pilot is trained to operate the system, whether glass cockpit or otherwise.

Neil
 
Timbuff10 said:
Also the glass cockpit 172s that I have been flying have the TIS feature which I think is great and makes your chances of a mid air go way down.
Click to expand...

True.dat

My former instructor said once that it really is kind of a queezy feeling knowing how much traffic you probably miss.

I agree aswell, it makes it safer mainly because of the TIS system.

The other day after a solo flight out to the practice area...I was heading back to the airport and got a traffic advisory behind and to my left. I look back...and sure enough there is traffic at my 7 to 8 o'clock at my altitude less than a mile away...It was a biplane (like a Waco) It was a neat thing to see but if I hadn't been given that TA...I would've turned right into his flight path to enter the 45 to downwind.
 
I taught both systems. I was certified by Cessna at their plant in Independence, KS to teach ground on the G1000 and I went through Pipers weekend course on the Avidyne, so I have a great deal of experience with both. The answer to your question is as follows:

Yes and no.

If you are a safe pilot to begin with, it may or may not improve your situational awarness and here's why:

Cons
1. A LOT of "heads down" time at first learning all the bells and wistles causes some to forget that their first responsibility is to see and avoid;

2. Sometimes a pilot will become TOO dependant on everything the glass cockpit has to offer and forget to get his eyes outside. Even the Garmin 1000 with TAS (Traffic Awareness System) and the Avidyne FlightMax aren't going to tell you when Joe Schmoe is out cruising around with his transponder turned off.

Pros
1. Added situational awarness can SUPPLEMENT your scan outside the plane.

2. Once you know how to use it properly, it can significantly reduce a lot of your workload.

The bottom line is that complete dependency on ANY technology can be detrimental to the safety of your flight if you forget to be a pilot first.

As always = Fly the plane. Do NOT let the plane fly you!!

Just my $0.02

R2F
 
PanJet said:
Glass cockpits offer little to no reliance on vacuum, but much more on electricity; a much more important system if you ask me. No vacuum, big deal, you fly partial panel; no juice, you're screwed (glass cockpit or no)
Click to expand...

If you have some systems training in glass cockpits, you'd think differently. The Cessna G1000, for example, has this HUGE battery behind the control panel. Why? In case of an electrical failure, it'll run the essential bus. That will give you 30-45 minutes to find an airport to land at without even having to do it partial panel. If you lose the essential bus, something is wrong, and it's not the electrical system. That would just be a symptom of the problem.

There's a lot more to go into, but basically I say no, they are not any safer. I feel just as safe behind a good old six pack with nav instruments as I would with glass.
Click to expand...

I feel a lot safer with glass than I do the six pack. Why? There's a TON more information for SA, you just have to know how to read and interpret it. Which goes back to having a well trained, safe pilot. If Joe Schmo jumps in a G1000 182 and goes off without the proper training, he's being unsafe. If he gets the proper training, learns the systems and knows how to navigate through the menus, then he's a safer pilot with more information at his fingertips.

Keep in mind that there were people that didn't trust GPS when it first came out. Now it's hard to find an airplane without one.
 
kellwolf said:
If you have some systems training in glass cockpits, you'd think differently. The Cessna G1000, for example, has this HUGE battery behind the control panel. Why? In case of an electrical failure, it'll run the essential bus. That will give you 30-45 minutes to find an airport to land at without even having to do it partial panel. If you lose the essential bus, something is wrong, and it's not the electrical system. That would just be a symptom of the problem.
Click to expand...

I understand there are lots of backup systems like the battery. If you read down further in my post you would see that I acknowledged that in my paragraph that said:

PanJet said:
However, I don't believe they are less safe. Obviously they have proven to be reliable, and we humans (at least western culture ones) put one heck of a lot of faith in the ever so important and mysterious electron that has proven us well for the most part. If electricity can be trusted with a life support machine in a hospital, why not in an airplane?
Click to expand...

I also want to add to that the fact that I believe electrical systems are more reliable than anything at all that has moving parts. e.g. gyros, vacuum pumps, etc. Hence also why the usual culprit in electrical problems is the alternator, but like you said, class cockpit equipped plans account for that.

kellwolf said:
I feel a lot safer with glass than I do the six pack. Why? There's a TON more information for SA, you just have to know how to read and interpret it. Which goes back to having a well trained, safe pilot. If Joe Schmo jumps in a G1000 182 and goes off without the proper training, he's being unsafe. If he gets the proper training, learns the systems and knows how to navigate through the menus, then he's a safer pilot with more information at his fingertips.
Click to expand...

I agree with you there. More information does help make better decisions, etc. etc.

Basically overall though, I still believe that safety is what you make it. If you are well trained and competant in steam gauge aircraft, they can be just as safe as glass cockpits.
 
Is it safer? Yes and No. but it depends on the pilot.

Technology is never a substitute for situational awareness and experience. Something the "VLJ" market is going to learn soon.
 
Doug Taylor said:
Is it safer? Yes and No. but it depends on the pilot.

Technology is never a substitute for situational awareness and experience. Something the "VLJ" market is going to learn soon.
Click to expand...

Oh but Doug they're the future of aviation!!!!

:sarcasm:
 
I don't think you understand the synergies that are involved in the current paradigm shift, Doug. You need to be a team player here and understand that if doctors were killing themselves doing 180 knots in Bonanza's, they're going to be MUCH safer in jets moving 320 knots.

Wait...I just had a Killtron moment...
 
I have to say without question a glass deck is much safer and fail-safe. The comment about gyros and vac ... well glass always has back up steam gauges. The format of the screens allows you to view all of the most pertinent information while in IMC while limiting head movements and having a eye-tiring scan.

I have taught on the glass G1000 and find it much more user friendly, informative, and easier to understand once students get the hang of it. Also consider, there is no instrument errors on glass. As mentioned, the stand by battery allows for 30 minutes of power should the electrical system fail and again, you have your steam gauges.
 
PanJet said:
I've actually had three electrical failures so far as a pilot, and zero vacuum failures. Although there are more built in systems like dual alternators and the like with glass cockpits, I believe they just put more reliance on one system.
Click to expand...

Vacuum failures are a much more problematic issue in IMC than a glass screen failure. With the G1000, you can re-boot or just fly on the steam gauges. When the sacred six vac/gyro instruments fail what will you rely on then?
 
You have to remember that glass cockpits still have gyros that can fail.
 
Doug Taylor said:
You have to remember that glass cockpits still have gyros that can fail.
Click to expand...

The only gyro(s) in a glass cockpit is a turn coordinator that is associated with the AP other than the stand by AI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top