Go back to what I said earlier:It all comes down to the pilot his / her understanding of the systems, how to use them and when to use them... period.You said:and as some of the accidents show-can encourage some to get in well above their limits due to their trust in the technology.And there is even more evidence that does not only suggest, but validates people that get way over their head with bad judgment and no automation to help them once they have went over their abilities or were just out of their game for one reason or another. Ever woke up, had to fly and say to yourself, man.. I just don't feel on top of it today. If you said no you would be lieing. Its a double edge sword my friend.You also said:Perhaps like the airliners there will be a period of safety, followed by what seems to be going on this year.I disagree and take issue with you on this one. What has happened is that some of the regionals are pushing these young people like plantation workers, terrible hours, lack of sleep, very low pay, incredibly low entry level hour requirements and the list goes on. It never used to be that way years ago (except for the pay of course) These are the real issues Geofa, not the use or mis-use of automation. Nobody said use automation all the time. But know when to use it and how to use it and don't be a cowboy... not using it at all because you want to prove something to yourself. It is all "real" flying either by hand or automation if both are understood and knowledge applied. A pilot should know how to "both" hand fly and use automation and keep proficient at both.Jim

Go back to what I said earlier:It all comes down to the pilot his / her understanding of the systems, how to use them and when to use them... period.Nobody said use automation all the time. But know when to use it and how to use it and don't be a cowboy... not using them it at all because you want to prove something to yourself. Nobody is that good. + I pilot should know how to "both" hand fly and use automation and keep proficient at both.Jim

Then it sounds like we don't disagree at all.....and I'd love to have a G1000.

Then it sounds like we don't disagree at all.....and I'd love to have a G1000.

Then its a handshake and a beer. (or your favorite beverage. :(Also agree on the G1000. If you make it to Osh this year, be sure and get with me before or when you get there. We will be displaying some hardware / software G1000's and would love to have a beverage with you in the evening. Food as well!

Then its a handshake and a beer. (or your favorite beverage. :(Also agree on the G1000. If you make it to Osh this year, be sure and get with me before or when you get there. We will be displaying some hardware / software G1000's and would love to have a beverage with you in the evening. Food as well!

I am going to get there -though will probably drive. Be there probably noonish on Monday and all day Tuesday. Look forward to seeing what you have as always.

You two are sooo far off topic... tsk tsk. :(

You two are sooo far off topic... tsk tsk. :(

Might have been a good thing actually... did you really want me to "go there" :( I am sure you and I could keep this thread busy for quite some time if I did. :( Jim

Might have been a good thing actually... did you really want me to "go there" :( I am sure you and I could keep this thread busy for quite some time if I did. :( Jim

Nah... we gots to behave. :(

I am the first one to agree-however I was just looking at the ntsb page on Cirrus's . Quite a few of the fatal accidents for this year alone were impacting terrain (some in vfr), and getting disoriented..The Cirrus has a slightly worse than average safety record-even with all its glass/safety systems. One would expect the record should be stunningly better.Of course there are many reasons (including the Dr. killer mentality)-but again-does all this technology necessarily equate to more safety when the pilot will always be the weak link? Logic would dictate so-but it doesn't seem to be happening. One might argue that all this technology might give an over confident, complacent, false sense of security and encourage some to take flights over the pilot's ability, thus having a 180 effect on safety. I know some of the old timer's that instruct on our local Cap g1000 plane complain that the pilot's they instruct spend way too much time with their heads down button twiddling, and since they fly mostly by autopilot lack basic skills. Of course they are the old timers-me- I am somewhere in the middle. I'd still like to know if other than aircraft specific, if there are specific statistics that show whether the new tech planes are actually flying safer statistically than the old steam ones.In the Cirrus's case it does not seem to have made a difference.

A good post Geofa - Ryan too. I tend to agree that no matter how much glass you have, there is no substitute for basic skills. I've just finished re-reading a very well written pilot's manual on radio navigation and instrument flying from the mid 1980's. It was written before the age of GPS and I did lots of the exercises within using FSX: QDMs, VOR approaches, circle to land, fixes from two NDBs, etc etc. I had a ball and it sharpened up my navigation skills no end.I wonder whether a majority of Cirrus owners are a bit like dilittante golfers - who own all the most expensive gear but can't hit a golf ball to save their lives. The Cirrus is very expensive, and I would guess a fair proportion of owners are high on wealth and low on talent or experience. Although I find such cockpits impressive technically, I find them utterly souless. Add the side stick and it becomes the last aircraft I would ever want to own. But that's just personal prejudice which I concede!It seems a lifetime ago when I did my general flying test, and 2 navigation tests, using a plastic flight ruler/calculator, a map, and a bit of dead reckoning. This is the stiff that keeps you on your toes! Maybe those Cirrus accidents, and similar ones in other aircraft, are breaking the golden rule of priorities: Aviate, then Navigate, then Communicate. Perhaps the aviation bit got bypassed. I would guess that a fair proportion of these accidents are on approach in IMC weather and hilly terrain, or a slow steep turn leading to a stall and spin, or simply cruise flying into a hill in cloud or bad vis. No amount of glass is going to help you out of much of this, unless you are absolutely sure 1) Where you are, 2) what ground clearance you have and 3) Is your aircraft attitude commensurate with safe flying.I would be interested to know how many accidents were also a result of not only "looking at glass" rather than out of the canopy, but due to a misunderstanding of the complexities of operating the glass stuff. The corollary of a nav system which has so many "safety" features is that the qualifications to operate them are not anything to do with piloting skills but much more aligned to computer skills, as are the increasingly complex systems in airliners, and none of the understanding of them is directly connected with core aviation skills.All the best,Rob Young

No amount of glass is going to help you out of much of this, unless you are absolutely sure 1) Where you are, 2) what ground clearance you have and 3) Is your aircraft attitude commensurate with safe flying.I would be interested to know how many accidents were also a result of not only "looking at glass" rather than out of the canopy, but due to a misunderstanding of the complexities of operating the glass stuff. The corollary of a nav system which has so many "safety" features is that the qualifications to operate them are not anything to do with piloting skills but much more aligned to computer skills, as are the increasingly complex systems in airliners, and none of the understanding of them is directly connected with core aviation skills.

I disagree. Not only will the modern glass units show you where you are, it will show you what kind of terrain or objects are near you, how far you are away from them and and when you will collide with them.The other point about not looking out the cockpit... are we talking VFR or IFR? If it is IFR, you ain't going to be seeing anything out there anyway so you better be very attentive to those instruments no matter if they are glass or analog. Basic flying skills are always first and foremost. How a person is trained and how often they make it a point to keep that training current is another. A simple Biannual doesn't count in my book and I think therein lies the problem. I have studied the FITS curriculum standards and even have a product that was accepted by the FAA FITS program, so even though you may be getting my opinion, it is based on industry standards and human factor studies.Nothing can provide you the level of situational awareness and information that modern navigation systems do. Period. If you disagree, you probably have never flown any extended amount of time with any or had proper training. This is where the problem is, there is not enough or sufficient training programs and criteria out there to meet the rapid development of the new systems but it is still the Pilots responsibility to get it! and understand the system they fly with! Knowing those systems and knowing them well is the key and that is absolutely possible. It is no different than knowing how to use conventional analog instruments it is just a different format. It still requires proficiency and focus but modern glass systems offer much more in the way of safety if properly used and understood. Don't think for one moment that there are not mountains littered with aircraft carcases that have flown into them with conventional analog gauges. I will argue that there are more than there are glass.RegardsJim

I disagree

A good post Geofa - Ryan too. I tend to agree that no matter how much glass you have, there is no substitute for basic skills. I've just finished re-reading a very well written pilot's manual on radio navigation and instrument flying from the mid 1980's. It was written before the age of GPS and I did lots of the exercises within using FSX: QDMs, VOR approaches, circle to land, fixes from two NDBs, etc etc. I had a ball and it sharpened up my navigation skills no end.snippedIt seems a lifetime ago when I did my general flying test, and 2 navigation tests, using a plastic flight ruler/calculator, a map, and a bit of dead reckoning. This is the stiff that keeps you on your toes!

I concede. I'm getting closer to 60 years of age, and a GPS fanatic. I've been using aviation moving map GPS since the early 1990's when they first became available.I'll tell you what I think about "old time navigation skills". Let them die off! As far as I'm concerned; NDB's & VORs can go the way of cross country light towers, radio modulation and dinosaurs. Same for E6B's and plotters. They are not needed. They waste valuable time, and cause one to keep their head in the cockpit; even more than a glass screen. At least with glass, it's instant awareness most of the time. And with synthetic vision in IMC, it's just like a daytime flight simulation...........all the time!We're better off getting rid of the old time navigation junk! The only thing it's good for is eliminating boredom while desk top flight simming! Just keep that GPS running with a backup GPS if required, and follow along on sectionals. You'll never be lost, and within three feet of where you think you are. With WAAS, you'll even be within ten feet of altitude!. When I see all this talk of dialing in OBS's, cross checks for position, etc......................I think why? I can do this much easier on a desktop computer and save loads of money over renting a hangar, cost of insurance, fuel, and the airplane itself! When I fly, it's for the scenery, getting there faster, or both. And why not! We have some of the most diversified and beautiful scenery in the world at my back door, or within a few hours. Our mountains double as the ALPs in various movies, and the Grand Canyon is less than two hours away.Which brings up my point..............the mountains. For years, pilots & their poor unknowing passengers have clobbered them. Year by year, by year. Finally, thanks to GPS, this is being overcome. There have been numerous flight into terrain accidents in which the aircraft was equpped with GPS. Unfortunatly, these were the old fashinoned point to point type, with no terrain/obstacle data bases. Thanks to modern GPS systems; we not only have terrain avoidance, but we also have uplinked weather which shows weather systems for hundreds or even thousands of miles around us. We no longer have to make educated guesses about what's ahead, or what's at the destination. We can plan heading changes a hundred miles or more ahead, to circumvent weather problems. With GPS it's easy to zig zag precisely around restricted military areas as well as TFR's. My GPS even displays current TFR's along with the boundary's on the moving map.In fact, modern handheld GPS's can contain more information that a lot of commercial airliners in service with their expensive panels. We don't have to takeoff on the incorrect "short" runway, because the whole airport diagram is laid out on the GPS moving map, along with our aircrafts position. And thanks to new low cost satellite trackers, we don't even have to become hidden for a year or two, as one famous aviator did last year, after crashing into a mountain.Yep; throw out the old navigation devices with the dishwasher, and bring in the new! And as far as GPS failing.....................it's been far too many years since any of mine have. That includes both aviation and land vehicle. There are always those mysterious military bases where signals are supposably jumbled, but they are few and far between and usually notemed.I'm all for GPS, glass panels, and the enhanced safety value we're going to see in the future of flight. If it takes the younger computer generation wiz kids to fly them, then so be it! We'll be better off!As to myself, I still have the basic six pac panel with 2 axis auto-pilot, a Garmin 696 portable GPS with XM satellite weather, and a SPOT satellite tracker. I may finish my IFR rating that was mostly complete 15 years ago. But, I once again have to ask myself why. I like flying as free as a bird with no schedules. I like changing my mind on a whim. I like manuvering through mountain passes that aren't exactly on a flight plan. I no longer use flight plans, as the satellite tracker is sending position reports to various computers, and will alert an instant response if it's 911 button is pushed. I fly for the "eye candy"of earth's nature, as some would call it! L.Adamson

I disagree

You know what surprises me Ryan? I worked closely with one of your professors at UND and he is exactly on the same page as I. He wrote the white papers on FITS and I worked with him very closely to get my product FITS accepted. If you are going to disagree make a point. Jim

I'll tell you what I think about "old time navigation skills". Let them die off! As far as I'm concerned; NDB's & VORs can go the way of cross country light towers, radio modulation and dinosaurs. Same for E6B's and plotters. They are not needed. They waste valuable time, and cause one to keep their head in the cockpit; even more than a glass screen. At least with glass, it's instant awareness most of the time. And with synthetic vision in IMC, it's just like a daytime flight simulation...........all the time!L.Adamson

Amen brother.Jim

You know what surprises me Ryan? I worked closely with one of your professors at UND and he is exactly on the same page as I. He even wrote the white papers on FITS.If you are going to disagree make a point. Jim

I don't see it so much as disagreement as a result. I had the first loran that had long/lat-then the first garmin gps that was much the same-then the Apollo and a few other Garmins, now on to not only gps's but tablet pc software (have 3 in my plane). I think they are the greatest!From a flight I just did today:

On the other hand-the two near air collisions I have had were with Cirrus pilots who were completely disoriented. I had an experience with a friend of mine who was an excellent ifr pilot who had a Garmin 430 installed when they were fairly new. I took off with him and the next thing I new we were all over the sky as he tried to program it. This lasted for quite a while (no garmin trainer for fs at that time to do the practice at home). When he doesn't fly on a regular basis-he can't remember how to do certain things-and there is lots of heads down time-and a few excursions. Luckily for me I have "trained" on fs-and even though I have a kln94 seem to know more about the unit's operation than he does.I agree-with a properly trained pilot there is probably nothing better in the sky than a proficient pilot with a glass cockpit. But how many are going to be "properly trained" and proficient? How many are going to be once every 2-3 week pilots who once up in the air the flight will turn into a discovery flight every time as they keep their head down trying to remember how to operate their equipment? How many of these pilots will launch into weather that may beyond their experience with a false confidence relying these great systems. As with all new technologies-they are always put forward with good-but somehow turn out to have negatives when humans get involved.I think these questions have been answered with the Cirrus statistics.We have pilots that have:1) launched into ifr flight beyond the capabilities of the pilots2) launched into icing conditions assuming the fiki equipment and systems can handle anything3) flown into terrain despite incredible information on the glass screen (buildings in the case of a famous New York crash).4) almost had collisions with me-possibly due to not understanding their systems and keeping their heads down while trying to figure them outAgain-the pilot always ends up being the variable...I'll be the first one to get a glass panel when I get rich. I think they are the greatest. But I still have my doubts that the safety statistics will change much. The Cirrus has been around for a while-and the stats are not any more stellar than the Eurocoupe or the Mixmaster were..and they were pioneering safety features for their time. I have no problem being wrong on this one-but I haven't seen any stats yet that say I am. When they come out I'll be the first to eat crow! :-)

I read Jim and Larry's contributions and can't really argue with them. There is no doubt that GPS and glass gauges do eliminate a lot of hassles. But that doesn't mean they are foolproof, but for me more important than that is a question of aesthetics. One of the reasons I don't fly powered aircraft any more is that the whole thing has become, in the UK, ludicrously expensive, crowded, and based on ever more pricey technology. There are two strands to this discussion. One is concerned with the efficiency and apparent safety of getting from A to B while airborne, and there is no argument here. Current technology is infinitely safer in marginal conditions. The other is about flying for pure pleasure.Why would I want to go for a country walk looking at a GPS readout of where I was? Most flyers here fly for pleasure. I see no pleasure whatoever looking a square slab of glass. But even if that wasn't the case, why are there still a very large number of flying accidents? The answer lies not just in knowing apparently where you are, but what you are going to do with that information. Furthermore, well trained use of older technology can almost guarantee a true position and height fix. Glass cockpits are fine but that does not mean any older technology is useless. A well trained map reader with a good eye for airspeed and altimeter readings, plus a few NDBs, can probably get within a few metres accuracy of a GPS. The focus is on accuracy of information, but more important is what you DO with that information.Let's look at some recent air disasters: Almost none of them were due to errors in technology, but either a misinterpretation of the available info or other factors which have nothing to do with navigation. These include falling out of the sky through lack of understanding of icing conditions, penetrating airspace with wind sheer in marginal weather, the classic slow turn with too much bank and too little airspeed, a non-belief in what instruments are actually telling you, ignoring a stick shaker when it's telling you that you are near stall, failure to abandon an approach when you know it doesn't feel right, late aborting of take off when you know something is not right, pressing on in storm conditions when you know you should never have taken off in the first place, and so on. None of these accidents would have been less likely whatever the sophistication of glass gauges.All glass gauges do in terms of the above scenarios is falsely reassure you that everything is fine when it is definitely NOT fine. So the crux of my argument is not that such things are bad. Indeed they are like any new technology, only as intelligent as the ability of the user to operate them.But my chief objection to them is that they are spectacularly souless. Where safety is a genuine concern I would be the first to admit that is not a valid argument. So for commercial use they are fine. For pleasure they are utterly uninspiring, as is the walk in the country where you don't absorb the scenery but have you head buried in a camera lens or a device that tells you what you can see with your own eyes.Rob Young

I don't see it so much as disagreement as a result. I had the first loran that had long/lat-then the first garmin gps that was much the same-then the Apollo and a few other Garmins, now on to not only gps's but tablet pc software (have 3 in my plane). I think they are the greatest!From a flight I just did today:

On the other hand-the two near air collisions I have had were with Cirrus pilots who were completely disoriented. I had an experience with a friend of mine who was an excellent ifr pilot who had a Garmin 430 installed when they were fairly new. I took off with him and the next thing I new we were all over the sky as he tried to program it. This lasted for quite a while (no garmin trainer for fs at that time to do the practice at home). When he doesn't fly on a regular basis-he can't remember how to do certain things-and there is lots of heads down time-and a few excursions. Luckily for me I have "trained" on fs-and even though I have a kln94 seem to know more about the unit's operation than he does.I agree-with a properly trained pilot there is probably nothing better in the sky than a proficient pilot with a glass cockpit. But how many are going to be "properly trained" and proficient? How many are going to be once every 2-3 week pilots who once up in the air the flight will turn into a discovery flight every time as they keep their head down trying to remember how to operate their equipment? How many of these pilots will launch into weather that may beyond their experience with a false confidence relying these great systems. As with all new technologies-they are always put forward with good-but somehow turn out to have negatives when humans get involved.I think these questions have been answered with the Cirrus statistics.We have pilots that have:1) launched into ifr flight beyond the capabilities of the pilots2) launched into icing conditions assuming the fiki equipment and systems can handle anything3) flown into terrain despite incredible information on the glass screen (buildings in the case of a famous New York crash).4) almost had collisions with me-possibly due to not understanding their systems and keeping their heads down while trying to figure them outAgain-the pilot always ends up being the variable...I'll be the first one to get a glass panel when I get rich. I think they are the greatest. But I still have my doubts that the safety statistics will change much. The Cirrus has been around for a while-and the stats are not any more stellar than the Eurocoupe or the Mixmaster were..and they were pioneering safety features for their time. I have no problem being wrong on this one-but I haven't seen any stats yet that say I am. When they come out I'll be the first to eat crow! :-)

And there are no stats that prove you are right either. You ask how many will do this or that....?The same amount that fly analog. And you simply cannot use a hand full of Cirrus to make your point about an entire industry. How many G1000 equipped planes are running into mountains and buildings?is it the aircraft, the type of system, the type of pilot (bingo) or an entire industry? Don't pool an entire industry into a couple of instances and yes, 20 or even 30 is a few statistically. My points are not made by what I prefer but what I know and what I have studied and used and what the FAA leans toward, I have an incredible amount of hours in steam driven twins. I do not know one person that has "properly" transitioned over to glass and became proficient that would ever turn back. Most arguments like what are in this thread are made by people that have never used glass cockpits and are resistant to change, or except anything but what they have been conventionally taught. If you choose to use analog steam gauges thats is your right but it does not make you a safer pilot. Ever had a vacuum pump go out? Care to argue that that technology is more reliable or safer? Sorry guys, Glass is the present and the future, it is here to stay and drum roll please..... see if this sticks......"If properly understood and used" That is no different than what is required for analog instruments.Also Geofa, this was not targeted at you as much as it is the entire thread.Jimhttp://www.flttechonline.com/Current/AOPA%...ely%20Safer.htmPretty much says what I have noted in my numerous above attempts to clarify what the real problem is. It comes down to the pilot and his proficiency level. It always has!