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.
I think you're painting with a VERY broad brush. You're assuming a lot about what these pilots are like and what their attitude is like prior to undertaking a flight.
What's the backup power source in a SEL when the alternator belt decides to let go? How long will it power the glass?
In a typical G1000 installation, the system can be powered for approximately 30 minutes from the main battery. After that, the standby battery will kick in and power the essential bus for a minimum of another 30 minutes. The essential bus provides power for all flight instruments, one comm radio, one nav radio, and some other miscellaneous items.
When it comes to complete electrical failures in IMC, I'll take a glass panel over a conventional panel any day.
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,
Agreed!
glass just allowed you to take off thinking you knew what you were doing, because it's so easy to fly glass.
Another big assumption. Probably true for some folks, probably very untrue for a lot of folks.
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...
You're probably right.
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.
What's your point? That glass is bad? Would you rather the 777 be equipped with a purely analog cockpit? Are the pilots who fly 777s worse pilots than the ones who fly DC9s?
Or is it possible to be equally competent, safe, and professional through...gasp...having a good attitude coupled with good training?
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.
You're making a LOT of assumptions again. I interpreted that NTSB statement to mean glass cockpit aircraft tend to fly missions in IMC over longer ranges than round dial aircraft because *that's what they're built for.*
It makes more sense to fly an SR-22 coast to coast than an old C-172 because the SR-22 is designed for that kind of flying. When fatal accidents occur, it will be on that type of mission, because that's how pilots use them. Likewise, you'll find a lot of C-172 accidents on short-range VFR trips because that's how C-172 pilots use them.
(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?
Yeah, I don't know. It's a tough situation to deal with. There is no good answer.
I think it can be a shared approach. During certificate training, a foundational knowledge of this technology needs to be instilled. Just like how all private pilots need to learn the concepts of using a VOR no matter if they ever plan to navigate with a VOR or not, I think they should also have a rudimentary understanding of how glass cockpits are utilized. This could be tested on the written exam as well as the oral exam during a checkride.
I don't think an endorsement would be a bad idea either, but I'm not sure the best way to implement it. Being too generalized would be pointless, while being too specific would be a PITA.
I wonder if requiring instructors who wish to teach in glass panel aircraft to take some sort of FAA-approved training program might be possible. By increasing the quality of instructors, as well as barring instructors who don't know what they're doing when it comes to glass panels, the knowledge would gradually filter down through the industry.
But I don't really know. It will take more research and brainstorming.
It does not have to be IMC. I think the recent midair at Boulder the two guys had their heads down at the glass. What about the CAP CFIT in Vegas? What would make two very high time pilots drill a new G1000 182 into Mt. Potossi during night VMC? They had their heads in the glass.
Are you certain those crashes happened because the pilots "had their heads in the glass"? Has the NTSB found that to be the cause?
Or are you making baseless speculation?
Brian, I agree completly, but one question; I thought one of the -good- things about most glass is the terrain mapping feature? Did this airplane not have terrain mapping in it? I'm not familiar with the G1000 but even my little hand-held Gamin III Pilot has obsticles in the data base, if not mountains, I'm guessing the G1000 must have terrain in it?
A little story for you....
I recently flew a high performance, glass cockpit aircraft in to Scottsdale, Arizona at night. I had never been to KSDL before and am not familiar with the area.
As I approached from the north, I was cleared for a visual approach to Runway 21 even though I was high and fast.
I maneuvered to the north and east to set up for a long final. Right before turning on to a wide base leg, with my head on a swivel and looking back over my shoulder to estimate the angle to the runway, I heard a "Whoop! TERRAIN! Whoop! TERRAIN!" That'll get your attention when you're in an unfamiliar mountainous area at night.
Sure, enough, the McDowell Mountains were smack in front of me and I had misjudged the distance in the darkness.
In a conventional panel high performance aircraft I could have *easily* slammed myself in to a hill...on an IFR flight plan, at the end of a long trip. Thanks to technology, I didn't even come close. Though if I had, there would have undoubtedly been dozens of guys like Brian on the interwebs spouting off about how I was an incompetent pilot who crashed because he had his "head in the glass," regardless of what *actually* happened.
