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 I am not talking about a single 430 or 430 but a comprehensive glass equipped system. 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" Also Geofa, this was not targeted at you as much as it is the entire thread.Jim

Jim-I will say again-I will be the first to ditch steam gauges when my pocket book can afford it. I would never argue that steam are superior to glass. I have and always will be a geek-and always embrace the next technology-sometimes to my detriment as Vista 32 has been for me.Yes I have had a vacuum pump go out-my first ifr flight in imc requiring a no gyro approach. I would prefer glass for this very reason.However-the Cirrus which has been around for a while--does have statistics that are worse than steam. That is a fact.When I see stats that the G1000 Cessnas/Barons etc. have better safety records than steam I will be a believer. Are there any yet?The Cirrus has been around longer and it comes out slightly worse which is hugely surprising.Again-the operative word seems to be "properly", "trained", "understand the systems" etc. e.g. the pilot.There is a large population that flies that is none of the above. They are the ones that will ultimately drive the statistics down.Now one could say that is their fault -which it is-but if the ultimate goal is to increase safety and it doesn't don't results superseed ideals?

It has nothing to do with the Cirrus, so you really need to lose the Cirrus reference. The Cirrus aircraft is very capable and very safe.It has everything to do with the type of pilots that are attracted to the Cirrus and what they are willing to learn or stay proficient at...Think about it... wealthy businessman type or professional, taking risks is probably what got them where they are today.. on the go, confident, in a hurry and most likely low time.... Don't forget the old bonanzas attracted the very same crowd and the very same results.It is absolutely plausible to compare the modern day Cirrus to the older Bonanzas. They represented the same type product and same type audience, just a different time warp. It is not the airplane. Ok your turn... :( Jim

. 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.

Yes, the accuracy of a NDB might be within a few meters of GPS, but a GPS will show the exact location of that large mountain looming in the background. The airport where I flew to today, has just such a mountain within close vicinity of the NDB. In the last few years, we've had two airplanes with flight instructors on board that crashed in the mountain terrain. The instructors and students obviously screwed up, due to poor flight planning with a sectional and minimum altitudes (or lack of). But they didn't have to crash. A modern GPS such as mine will give more than adequate warning, many miles in advance. Mine will turn yellow and red for any elevations that are higher than my current altitude. It also provides audio terrain warnings through my headset. Several other flight into terrain accidents involved flight crews who thought they hadn't passed a certain waypoint, but had already done so. They both had navigation systems, but not the "big picture" that today's GPS can easily show.The point here; is yes, older technology CAN provide position, altitude, and a safe flight. But somewhere along the line, pilots are doing inadequate pre-planning, or situational awareness for whatever reason is lost. Even ATC has been guilty of not providing enough information when they can easily see that the pilot is on the wrong track and altitude. This is a problem that moving map GPS with the "big picture" can fix within seconds. Your mind can once again gain situational awareness of the plane's position and altitude relative to terrain, etc. It's precious seconds that you don't have by mentally trying to triangulate a fix, or process information from basic IFR instruments. Time is crucial. I have statistics on far too many accidents that back that up. Sooner than not, most TAA airplanes will include 3D synthetic terrain. IMO this is just what's needed.P.S. --- I also have one of those plane tracking devices. It works by picking up replies to transponder signals. There must be a radar or radar from an overhead plane that interegates a transponder. It's an el-cheapo, doesn't display on my moving map; but it gets my attention.L.Adamson

It has nothing to do with the Cirrus, so you really need to lose the Cirrus reference. The Cirrus aircraft is very capable and very safe.It has everything to do with the type of pilots that are attracted to the Cirrus and what they are willing to learn or stay proficient at...Think about it... wealthy businessman type or professional, taking risks is probably what got them where they are today.. on the go, confident, in a hurry and most likely low time.... Don't forget the old bonanzas attracted the very same crowd and the very same results.It is absolutely plausible to compare the modern day Cirrus to the older Bonanzas. They represented the same type product and same type audience, just a different time warp. It is not the airplane. Ok your turn... :( Jim

Jim-Seems you and I don't disagree at all-you just perhaps have more faith in the average pilot than I do...Larry-are you talking about the mrx?

If you guys don't get back on topic... I'm gonna have to... *runs before the admins can catch him!*

Amazing how circular arguments can become. Kind of like looking at a diamond from only one angle and arguing that the other facets aren't as valid as the one you are focused on.In every response here it is obvious that there is more agreement than disagreement and it's been that way since I've been around aviation.In this case everyone seems to acknowledge the importance of basic flying and navigation skills since we all cut our teeth on Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.Add glass aids to the subject and folks go with their own view while sometimes ignoring the value of this "new facet".There is no doubt that TAA has enhanced the experience, safety, and enjoyment for any number of pilots.It appears that the real problem is that what was designed to enhance the flow of information and reduce pilot workload has actually become a hinderance to those who may not be computer literate of spend too much time exploring the buttons and functions. Anyone remember their instructor causing distractions on downwind to base or base to final and how easily you were distracted until you learned better?If glass users are as easily distracted by the glass then they need further training on cockpit management and PIC focus until this is no longer an issue for them.In the case of Cirrus, most of their crash record can be attributed to the same old "doctor killer" mentality we've all observed at one time or another. In the end it doesn't matter how good they think they are....only how they actually behave in critical situations. :(

Jim-Seems you and I don't disagree at all-you just perhaps have more faith in the average pilot than I do...

Actually thats not right either. (first part is right) :( I only fly with people that I know very well. Doubtful that you will find me in an aircraft or with a pilot that I have not flown with for years unless it is an airliner.Great discussion though!Regards,Jim

Larry-are you talking about the mrx?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9GouB6_5qo

Yes. I thought I had seen that you had one also. L.Adamson

When I flew we didn't have any glass stuff in our planes. Now they are building an entire fleet of Skyhawk's with the G1000.So does anyone know if there will be a patch to make the RXP unit drive the vertical component of the autopilot?

However-the Cirrus which has been around for a while--does have statistics that are worse than steam. That is a fact.

There are still more "steam paneled" Cirrus a/c in operation than the Avidyne or G1000 equipped.What would be more statistically relevant would be a comparison of Cirrus Glass vs. Cirrus Steam...

There are still more "steam paneled" Cirrus a/c in operation than the Avidyne or G1000 equipped.What would be more statistically relevant would be a comparison of Cirrus Glass vs. Cirrus Steam...

This is a pretty comprehensive report and is an interesting read-you may need to be an Aopa member to read it:http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics/TAA2007.pdf

So does anyone know if there will be a patch to make the RXP unit drive the vertical component of the autopilot?

Only RXP would know that answer... I'll say I doubt it. That way they'll do it just to prove me wrong... and you win. ;)

This is a pretty comprehensive report and is an interesting read-you may need to be an Aopa member to read it:http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/topics/TAA2007.pdf

Very interesting report, Geofa (and one need not be an AOPA member to get the report).Several interesting items stand out on a careful reading:1. Weather showed the largest negative difference whencomparing Cirrus accidents to the overall GA fleet, withnearly one-third (31 percent) of all Cirrus accidentsinvolving weather, compared to 4.7 percent for GA overall.Weather proved to be uncommonly deadly in the Cirrus, accounting for nearly two-thirds (61.5 percent) offatal accidents. In the overall GA fleet, weather wasidentified as the cause in 16.4 percent of fatal accidents.2. Pilot experience is another area of interest when examiningTAA safety (Figures 5 and 6, p. 12). When lookingat total time in all aircraft, pilots with 1,000 hours orfewer are more likely to experience a mishap in a glasscockpit aircraft than in a traditional GA aircraft. Fatalaccidents in TAA were more common for even moreexperienced pilots, with those logging 1,500 or fewerhours having over 85 percent of fatal TAA accidents,compared to 57 percent for the fleet.Both of the above point to the absolute NEED for better training, especially focusing on "decision making..."Point two also points to a problem with perhaps becoming "too comfortable" with TAA and falling into the complacency trap...While I like glass myself, I still find it easier to calculate time based on an analog display rather than from a digital display... :(

When I flew we didn't have any glass stuff in our planes. Now they are building an entire fleet of Skyhawk's with the G1000.So does anyone know if there will be a patch to make the RXP unit drive the vertical component of the autopilot?

I seen this:SimForums.com ... RealityXp Forum:Topic: LPV and the Duke Posted: 17 June 2009 at 8:00amThe Duke HSI displays properly on my system while doing WAAS approaches.Michael** and he has a nice screenshot of the Glideslope needle working also.

Yes, the GS appears on the HSI but the autopilot will not fly the glide slope...