Yup, and if you're talking about budget, that's exactly what you should compare against. The gross weight may be lower, but so is the empty weight. It's not a small effect.
People don't like to admit this, but user interface can very, very easily drive behavior.
, I will use this when "my" plane is not available.
Wow. I'm certainly not all that informed with regard to the avionics market. I know Garmin owns the high ground... and the low ground. But there's a crap load of experimental avionics suppliers out there churning out a lot of innovative low cost product. Perhaps coming in the experimental back door like Cirrus may happen in avionics but whatever happens, it's digital electronics. They are reliable, always getting cheaper and no market is stable for long with a single dominant player. I'm thinking there's room for 1 or two more.
.
Rather differently than you presumed.
For the end user of most computers Mice are not an endangered species. This is where the is such a huge disconnect between computer programmers and end users. Programmer often think like programmers, and often have very little ability to understand how a program is going to be used by the non computer savvy person. Programs become over complicated and technically awesome, but as a result are unwieldly for the average user. Is the latest version of microsoft word, or for that matter windows really any better for tha average user than a few generations ago. I own more computers than I really like to think about and run ewverything from XP to windows8 and to tell you the truth XP has many things windows8 does not and in many ways is a better platform. I am using a 10 year old microsoft word on some of my computers and it works just as well as the new version of word that I have on my new laptop. For the vast majority of the computer using public programs need to be as simple as possible. Unfortunately, for companies such as Apple, and Microsoft, to do this would put them out of business. (Unfortunately, the world is enamored with electronic devices, and the companies have convinced us we can not live without what cell phones do today. I do not know how I survived the 1970's where my phone had a rotary dial and was only used for talking, and the only entertainment in my car was my AM radio, oh and my girl friend in the passenger seat:wink2
. A computer mice for a desktop application, think word processing, internet browsing, or accessing a database, and entering data, a mice is pretty convenient. Tablets are more of a mobile device and a mice would be inconvenient. As for mice related injury, I think the risk of chronic trauma from mice usage or even keyboard usage is somewaht over emphasized. Certainly, neurosurgeons, hand surgeons, and plastic surgeons are not getting overwhelmed with cases of carpal tunnel syndrome or wrist injuries from computer use.
Sorry, looks like I struck a nerve, and that was not my intention. I think your programs are vastly different from what I am talking about. You are writing code for a custom process which is very different for the mass produced garbage out there. I no longer program, but did some in an earlier life, and many of the programmers I met barely understood the needs of the end user, and I still see that quite commonly. Remember the majority of computer users do not know the difference between a bit and a byte, binary and hexidecimal, or analog and digital, all they care about is whether the program is user friendly or not and serves the purpose they need it for.
Agreed on all points. But my main disagreement with Henning is that he seems to think SVT is a game-changer, and I don't. It's nice to have, but that's about it. Although I'm beginning to think Henning doesn't understand the difference between integrated displays and SVT, and that he thinks the basic integrated display constitutes SVT -- and it doesn't.
Not sure what Henning thinks is SVT, but I get quite concerned when people start talking about how technology(specifically glass cockpits) can make the difference between safe and unsafe flying. In my opinion, it is what is between your ears and how you use what is in front of yours eyes that makes you a safe pilot and not what is in front of your eyes. Sure there is more information available to you in a glass cockpit, but the majority of it is just a different presentation than what is in a steam gauge cockpit. The additional stuff is nice to have but does not relieve you of your primary obligation as a pilot that being fly the plane!
I think your points make some sense. I am not sure that the studies really support any advantage of glass cockpit over steam gauge in terms of safety, and for me that is the main issue. Certainly, the presentation that a glass cockpit gives you is in many ways superior to that of steam gauges, but that advantage is really an in issue with instrument flying and this should not affect your ability to fly VFR. I have minimal instrument flying experience with steam gauges and so am not in any position to give a first hand account of the differences, as the vast majority of my IMC flying has been with a glass cockpit, and only a small amount with a six pack.
In theory, it should be possible to fly more safely with something like the Cirrus Perspective system (i.e., "glass") than a classic 1978-vintage vacuum-powered 6-pack dual nav/comm panel (i.e., "steam") -- more information available, more redundancy, better human factors all around. In reality, pretty near all the glass-panel plane accidents have been related to pilots making bad decisions unrelated to the presentation of flight/nav data. I mean, you can't blame running into the ground while trying to herd cattle with your Cirrus on the flight instruments. OTOH, confusion due to inability to sort out what was working from what wasn't is what brought down a glass-panel Cirrus in Florida -- something that might not have been so confusing in a simpler panel with fewer inputs to the pilot.
Not familiar witht he Florida accident but I probably should be. However there should be no confusion in what is working in a Cirrus glass panel(assuming it was a G1000). If it does not work there is a big red X.
True, but when some instruments are telling you one thing and others are telling you another, the more data in front of you, the more you have to sort out. In the Florida case, it was water in the static lines, so both the primary and backup altimeter/airspeed/VS instruments were haywire, but the attitude and heading were good. Only problem was the airplane had just come out of maintenance on the electric power system, so the pilot assumed it was the electrically powered instruments (including the backup AI) which were bad, when in fact those were the good ones. Try following altitude and airspeed when there's water in the static system (BTDT, but only for long enough to grab the alternate static source knob), and you'll see how fast you lose he bubble if you preemptively reject the AI as valid.
Exactly. And that's why we don't have enough data to confirm the relative safety of glass. Everything we know about human factors and systems design says should be better, but we can't prove it yet.
You are right not every malfunction will the G1000 tell you it is there but the examples you give such as pitot tube icing, engine roughness, engine mismanagement should be quite obvious with or without a G1000. Ron describes the cause of the problem in the Cirrus case as water in the static line, and likewise there will not be big X's for that either. However, and I think this is the rub, it does not matter if you are a glass cockpit or a steam gauge if you fail to fly the plane, and forget your training you are likely not to have a happy end to the flight. This has been my point all along, mishaps more often occur because of pilot factors and not because of plane factors, and often if a crash occurs because of plane factors the cause of the plane factor is a pilot factor, or the pilot has mismanaged the plane factor. As far as I am concerned these are preventable accidents, and having a glass cockpit, or not having a glass cockpit is not going to make a difference.
I call those systems very simple because I understand them better than average, I design and calibrate them for living
