Hi :smile:

 

Something I often think about is the difference between modern glass cockpits (737 NG or A320 for example) vs. the old, analogue cockpits (737-200 or A300). I can only judge from a flight-simulator-point of view. But I always think that modern cockpits aren't really more comfortable and less stressful. In an old cockpit, which included a flight engineer, you didn't have to worry about all the systems stuff as a pilot. That was part of the flight engineer, who mostly had more detailed knowledge about the plane than some pilots have today. You just had to calculate the flight performance yourself (without a FMC), insert waypoints into the INS, and that's it. Of course you had to fly the departures and arrivals mostly manually. But even this seems less stressful to me, compared to all the stuff regarding navigation displays and flight management computers, which have to be set and monitored.

 

What I mean is that these days you have to know a lot more details and you have to deal with a lot more systems and computer stuff. Flight managament computers and navigation displays are way more complex in combination with modern auto pilots than an INS and a HSI for example. And you have to deal with all the systems stuff as well. Just think about an Airbus A320 or even A380. Reading an aircraft manual of an A320 is a big difference in comparison to a manual of a 737-200.

 

So, how exactly are modern glass cockpits really more advantageous? What do you think?

 

PS: I personally also think that the old cockpits look more beautiful while modern glass cockpits are somehow boring. But that's a matter of taste.

 

 

Best Regards

Not being a pilot I have a somewhat "schizoid" opinion:

On the one hand, I find the modern PFD/ND/Systems monitoring displays setup very handy, because you have a lot of info easily visible, which is clearly an advantage, if there's only a pilot and an F/O, but no flight engineer and no navigator anymore.

On the other hand, I believe your options are pretty limited, if you have a faulty display: I think that the pilots depend pretty much on the ATC advice in such a case, as the back up instruments are limited to the most important ones.

 

If we also take the aesthetical part into account, I have to say that I do like the appearance of a 707's or 727's cockpit, but I also like the "tidyness" of an A320's cockpit.

Todays cockpit is precision navigation, within a few feet. You easily get the big picture for hundreds of miles in all directions. You know exactly where your're heading, and where you've been.

Terrain, weather, obstacles, and runways are depicted. We didn't have anything close to this, up through the mid ninties.

 

I am a self proclaimed GPS navigation fanatic. I used aviation moving map GPS's since they became available in 1993. My side "hobby", was the whys and wherefors of CFIT (controlled flight into terrain). I'd always figure in a few accident sites, into my GA flying trips throughout the mountain west, to make GPS mapping comparisons to what those pilots didn't have. The mountains out here are littered with accident sites, including numerous airliners dating back to the 1930s. Every morning as I leave home, I'm looking at a mountain peak, where a Boeing airliner disappeared in 1936, and wasn't found until six months later. It was eight miles off course, due to faulty radio navigation due to a snow storm. Emelia Earhart even flew out here, to help in the search. A United Airlines DC-8 cargo jet, hit the mountain above my home in 1977. Perhaps you can see where I picked up my interest in improved nav systems. There is no doubt whatsoever, about the advantages of modern glass displays, versus the older methods.

I flew KC-135As in the early 70's. I have had discussions with pilots flying the current KC-135R (Old airplane, but modern cockpit). They seem amazed at what we did with analog instruments and primitive navigation aids. Of course, we had a navigator and the current crews do not. We probably got more practice at shutting off the autopilot and hand flying. There's no doubt that modern systems provide far more precise navigation. On the other hand, when you get multiple system failures, and a loss of an engine, it's nice to have someone at the controls with actual experience rather than just simulated emergencies. I had an instructor who liked to pull 3 engines back to idle and prove the tanker could fly on just one engine (with light fuel loads). he always told us, "no matter what goes wrong, remember to fly the airplane!"

 

Dale