Tougher Flying Through Automation!!!

[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to have an all glass cockpit because it's more reliable than the steam gauges.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta disagree here. I'd rather have a pitot/static system directly hooked into the gauges instead of something with eight menu screens that I might either screw up an entry with or a computer glitch might clear out my flight plan. Plus, if your vaccum system fails with the glass panel, it's gonna be just as reliable as the AI and DG in a steam guage cockpit, which isn't much.
 
hey the gadgets are great. they can really help make our lives easy but i must agree that relying on them too much is a problem. i was flying once and this guy got on the radio and started asking questions like where he was and how to get from there to his destination. atc gave him a heading and asked him if he needed help. he said no but kept asking ridiculous qustions. so atc began probing. turns out his gps had failed yet he said everything else was working. he specifically stated that his hsi appeared to be working he just wasnt sure how to use it. i was in the same area and this was perfect vfr. he did alright with the help of atc but you got to wonder..... now if your plane is equiped with gps and all then know how to use it but dont forget those other very valuable instruments that have worked great for years.
 
The reason I ask is because I have no idea where you're coming from. It could be that I'm reading your post very poorly, but let me ask:

[ QUOTE ]
"Might screw up an entry or a computer glitch might clear out my flight plan"

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I haven't had a single computer glitch yet in the G1000 that would clear the flight plan, or cause any detrimental thing to happen... But, even if it did clear out your flight plan you're still ahead of the game in that you're able to enter a flight plan! If you fly the same in either a "glass" or "steam" plane, then you'd have something written down and a chart out. You're still ahead with the glass.

[ QUOTE ]
"Plus, if your vaccum system fails with the glass panel, it's gonna be just as reliable as the AI and DG in a steam guage cockpit, which isn't much."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what this means... you're saying the AI and DG in a steam cockpit are unreliable, so why the preferance? The G1000 has three independent systems feeding you information, if one fails, you still have functionallity. If a screen fails, you can switch to the other, if you turn the system off, you can turn it back on and it will self-initialize w/o any input, if the power fails you have a backup battery good for at least 30 mins giving you a com, nav, and gps. (if your battery fails in a steam cockpit, you don't get those). And if ALL that fails, you still have an airspeed, vaccum driven AI, and altimeter.

Add to this that the system has no moving parts to break and I think the reliability of the glass panels (in terms of catastropic failures) will be found to be wayyy higher.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Plus, if your vaccum system fails with the glass panel, it's gonna be just as reliable as the AI and DG in a steam guage cockpit, which isn't much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Must correct you there Kellwolf.

The new glass airplanes hav no vacum system. They need no vacum power to run anything. I belive thay they are significantly more reliable than the old vacum powered AIs. Not because there was anything wrong with the AIs, but the vacum pumps are notoriously unreliable.

The ones that have a standby conventional AI, do have a vacum pump.


That said, I agree with the general sentiment expresed here. I don't like the newer glass cockpits, because they take away from flying the plane. I love the Garmin 530/430s, but I always backed them up by VORs and dead reckoning.
 
I have to say one last thing
wink.gif


TAA's are not what one should learn in. Learn to fly in a J-3 Cub. Move up the ladder later on.

However, glass panels (or a 206 with all the bells and whistles) in the hands of someone who knows how to fly the "old way" truly does enhance safety exponentially. The biggest challenge is to not let it make you lazy.
 
I'm not sure if this is correct, but isn't the old steam gauge system much more likely to fail than a G1000?

If I'm wrong, let me know, and I'll throw that notion out the window.
 
[ QUOTE ]
However, glass panels... in the hands of someone who knows how to fly the "old way" truly does enhance safety exponentially. The biggest challenge is to not let it make you lazy.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is what everyone is saying in a nutshell I believe. Back to the law of Primacy boys and girls, learn it the normal/right way first. Then add the extra stuff.

Now, would someone please define TAA for those of us that are unfamiliar?

1) The panels you guys are calling "Glass," aren't really glass. They are LCDs. They are also powered by a simple form of AHRS I believe. Entry level a/c (turboprop/light jets) use AHRS. Most others are using Laser Ref (IRS) systems.

2) Whoever said that "glass" is more dependable....How often does your computer "lock up" and you have to reboot it? Along with new technology comes new problems. I fly a full glass cockpit (with old fashioned CRT ,monitors instead of LCDs). Dual GPS, dual IRS, dual FMS and dual NAVs and the whole shooting match. It will drop waypoints and do things that make you ask "Where's it going now?" And sometimes one of the NAVs (FMS) just decides it doesn't want to "talk" to the other.

The GPSs are only as reliable as the programmer (the pilot). You put in a wrong waypoint, it will take you to it. (AA Cali Columbia comes to mind). Is the database up to date? Did the last pilot "change" some of the default settings? Maybe he liked the "North UP" setting, or mph instead of kts?
 
[ QUOTE ]
...isn't the old steam gauge system much more likely to fail than a G1000?
If I'm wrong, let me know, and I'll throw that notion out the window.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I will almost guarantee that the G1000 won't be around in 50 years (Due to more advanced technology in development as we speak), but I am willing to bet that there will still be analog gauges flying around. Just like they have for the LAST 50+ years.

PS....And SWA will still be flying glass screens with pictures of "round" gauges displayed. I still don't see the whole logic there.
smirk.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
1) The panels you guys are calling "Glass," aren't really glass. They are LCDs. They are also powered by a simple form of AHRS I believe. Entry level a/c (turboprop/light jets) use AHRS. Most others are using Laser Ref (IRS) systems.

[/ QUOTE ]

We use AHRS as backup, with IRS (EGI) as primary.

[ QUOTE ]

Did the last pilot "change" some of the default settings? Maybe he liked the "North UP" setting, or mph instead of kts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ours defaults to CTUP, which I always have to change to DNUP.
banghead.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe he liked the "North UP" setting, or mph instead of kts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oooooh, I HATE it when they change that. I wanna do a Chapelle/Rick James on the last pilot who flew the plane when I see that.

Seriously, though, I like having the GPS there, but nothing beats a sectional and looking outside the window. Even with the gadgets, I still use the pre-steam gauge human eyeball to see where I am, and then confirm it with the GPS.

Maybe at the flight levels it's not fun anymore, but down at 3500/4500/5500 feet, it's a lot of fun to look out the window!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Is the database up to date? Did the last pilot "change" some of the default settings? Maybe he liked the "North UP" setting, or mph instead of kts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the north up setting. Not many people do though.


Oh well, I know North Up isn't used much in the airlines these days, guess I'll have to learn to like track up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top