Glass cockpit vs steam gauges

MAKG1 said:
And FYI, detonation refers to the combustion event. Knock refers to how the engine block responds to it. Detonation is a perfectly valid description of uncontrolled combustion involving a shock wave. The sensor detects knock and presumes the knock was due to detonation. They are commonly tested with a hammer, so you might imagine noncombustion ways that they might get fooled.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The process is deflagration, not detonation. The process is never detonation, because the combustion event is not supersonic.

The calibration is done by logging cylinder pressure during normal combustion, the actual detection threshold depends on the manufacturer. Bosch for example has decided, that 5 bar oscillation in one combustion event is outside tolerances.
"testing" a piezo sensor by hammering the block isn't a very smart way to test them.

For aircraft use, nobody would use piezo sensors or any other mechanical vibration detection method anyway.
 
MAKG1 said:
You assumed faults would be due to the glass. So did the dead pilot in Florida.
Click to expand...
Pilot lived, thanks to BRS. Absent the chute, maybe the pilot would have tried harder to figure things out (it really was completely flyable), or maybe even not launched into 400-1 weather in an all-electric plane just out of the shop for electrical work.
 
Ron Levy said:
Pilot lived, thanks to BRS. Absent the chute, maybe the pilot would have tried harder to figure things out (it really was completely flyable), or maybe even not launched into 400-1 weather in an all-electric plane just out of the shop for electrical work.
Click to expand...

You must be thinking of a different Florida Cirrus accident than I thought you were referring to. There's another similar one where the plane was just out o the avionics shop getting its FIFTH (!) Avidyne PFD installed at about 80 hours TTAF. Pilot took off into OVC006, lost control, did not pull the BRS, and died.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
You must be thinking of a different Florida Cirrus accident than I thought you were referring to. There's another similar one where the plane was just out o the avionics shop getting its FIFTH (!) Avidyne PFD installed at about 80 hours TTAF. Pilot took off into OVC006, lost control, did not pull the BRS, and died.
Click to expand...
Equally bad decision, just a worse outcome. Either way, you can't say this tells us anything about the relative safety of glass vs steam.
 
Round and black of equal size seem to dominate the market in the central US. Coastal-area owners (especially NoCal) use smaller tires on the left and tend to lean that way.:wink2:

RotorAndWing said:
:popcorn:

Could we also discuss the various options for tires?

Seems appropriate. :rofl::rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Round and black of equal size seem to dominate the market in the central US. Coastal-area owners (especially NoCal) use smaller tires on the left and tend to lean that way.:wink2:
Click to expand...

East and West perhaps. Not so much the Southern coastal areas. ;)
 
Ron Levy said:
Equally bad decision, just a worse outcome. Either way, you can't say this tells us anything about the relative safety of glass vs steam.
Click to expand...

Agreed and a bigger issue is being missed. An Avidyne PFD Cirrus has backup round gauges just below on the bolster. As far as Cirrus aircraft go round gauges = one AI; PFD = at least two AI's. I like the backup idea. This is from a guy who has owned both.
 
RotorAndWing said:
And the title of the thread is "Glass cockpit vs steam gauges"..........:dunno:
Click to expand...

A discussion on new technology does always seem to wander doesn't it?

I wonder if there was this much discussion over VOR technology when it first appeared on the scene. Might be fun to dig up some old articles.
 
peppy said:
Agreed and a bigger issue is being missed. An Avidyne PFD Cirrus has backup round gauges just below on the bolster. As far as Cirrus aircraft go round gauges = one AI; PFD = at least two AI's. I like the backup idea. This is from a guy who has owned both.
Click to expand...
Regardless of Avidyne or G1000, the Cirrus has one backup AI, one backup airspeed, and one backup altimeter. Same for all the light planes with Avidyne (R7 or R9) and G1000.
 
VOR (widely called "omni" at the time) was clearly better than the A-N ranges it replaced and pilots were thrilled with the capabilities. Arguments regarding to vs. from techniques were common and at least 10% of the troops never got the word. Many pilots preferred ADF for long-range nav, some still do.
acluffpoa said:
A discussion on new technology does always seem to wander doesn't it?

I wonder if there was this much discussion over VOR technology when it first appeared on the scene. Might be fun to dig up some old articles.
Click to expand...
 
MAKG1 said:
If the point of glass is to skip the weather briefing, we really are training less than competent pilots. I'm a bit surprised at the level of dependence here. People have been killed trying to use NexRad feeds tactically.

If you ever get in a situation where you need all those answers in 10 seconds, you're in WAY over your head and are probably about to die with or without glass.

Weather at the destination and along the route is pretty easy to get from FSS or Flight Watch.
Click to expand...

It's not to skip the briefing - It's to have up-to-date information available throughout the flight. And on a longer flight, FSS/Flight Watch is really pretty worthless. "An area of moderate to heavy precip 25 miles northeast of some VOR you've never heard of, 15 miles in diameter, moving east at 25-30 knots..." And now I have to get out the chart, find the VOR, and there's more heads-down time. It it possible? Sure. Does it increase workload to get less-precise information? Most certainly.

The point was not that I *need* the answers to those questions in 10 seconds - The point was that in a glass cockpit airplane, I can get those answers in 10 seconds, whereas doing it the old way would likely require more than 10 minutes, with radio calls, charts, E6B, etc. You simply cannot get the same amount of information in anywhere near the same amount of time. That means that in the glass airplane, I can spend more time actually flying the plane instead of seeking out that information. In many cases, that means that I wouldn't have time to get the information because I'm busy flying the plane, meaning that I have less info available to make decisions on.
 
Henning said:
Well, soon enough you'll see the ones without restricted to G airspace. NexGEN is coming.
Click to expand...

The equipment already exists to put ADS-B Out into any airplane with an electrical system. You don't need glass to comply with ADS-B requirements.
 
Ron Levy said:
Regardless of Avidyne or G1000, the Cirrus has one backup AI, one backup airspeed, and one backup altimeter. Same for all the light planes with Avidyne (R7 or R9) and G1000.
Click to expand...

Agreed. My point is that a 2002, which I owned at one time, has a single AI. Nothing prevents an owner from adding a backup. However, if you read what I was responding to it was agreeing with you and adding on to your response to a post about a Cirrus PFD failure. I was pointing out that in a Cirrus, a PFD failure is essentially a reversion back to a 6 pack. You still have at least one good AI and in many cases 2 since many planes (including my present one) have dual ADHRS along with the backup round gauges. In my old plane, an AI failure in IMC meant using TC, heading and altimeter. Now it means using the backup AI.
 
peppy said:
Agreed. My point is that a 2002, which I owned at one time, has a single AI. Nothing prevents an owner from adding a backup. However, if you read what I was responding to it was agreeing with you and adding on to your response to a post about a Cirrus PFD failure. I was pointing out that in a Cirrus, a PFD failure is essentially a reversion back to a 6 pack.
Click to expand...
With the G1000 system, a PFD failure is essentially a non-event -- it automatically shifts to reversionary mode on the MFD, and you lose almost nothing in the way of displayed information -- only real problem is the crick in your neck from flying cross-cockpit. With the original Avidyne, a PFD failure costs you a lot of the electronic flight instrumentation as there is no reversionary mode, so that is more like "back to 6-pack." Not sure what happens with the Avidyne R9 -- haven't seen one yet.

The biggest G1000 degraded state problem is in the Diamond, where failure of its single AHRS results in complete loss of the AI and HI displays, creating a more difficult problem for flying VOR or ILS approaches, but since you still have the full MFD display, it's nowhere near the problem of flying TC/ASI/VSI/ALT plus CDI with a legacy cockpit.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not sure what happens with the Avidyne R9 -- haven't seen one yet.
Click to expand...

R9 doesn't have a reversionary mode. Instead, there really isn't a PFD and MFD combo. Rather there are two IFD's (integrated flight display). A jumper in a plug forces the one in front of the pilot to always display the AI. The one to the right can be placed in all of the same display modes. The units are electrically identical i.e. the same part number. Each IFD has a GPS, ADHRS, and radio. The big areas lacking redundancy are as follows:

1) charts are only stored on the one acting as "MFD" and are not able to be displayed on the "PFD" since the AI must always be displayed. I carry an iPad.

2) The "MFD" can control the radios if the keyboard/center console goes out. The "PFD" doesn't display the same controls again due to being forced to always display the AI.

The ByteFlight bus remains active when a unit fails i.e. it is NOT subject to daisy chain failures. All in all the system is highly redundant. So, my plane has three AI's.
 
acluffpoa said:
I wonder if there was this much discussion over VOR technology when it first appeared on the scene. Might be fun to dig up some old articles.
Click to expand...


No because Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet, and it took two months to get a letter published in Flying magazine :lol::lol:
 
I'm late to the thread and didn't read all the pages. I'm sure it's drifted into some reason why Obama is to blame for bad breath, but I'll say this about the original topic-

I don't like either. I like the glass technology better, but the displays they have now have a lot to be desired. In order to get buyers to part with $10K+ of their money, the manufacturers have tried to pack as much into a little box as they could. The result is much like those fat little Swiss Army knives, they do everything, but it's really hard to do anything with them.

IMO, a glass panel should be no harder to use than an iPad and Fore Flight. No 10 hours of dual just to go fly VFR. A PFD should be just that. No more info than the basic 6 pack. It should always be accompanied by a MFD. I am not convinced that tapes are better than dials for altitude and airspeed. What is needed is hybrid, or alternate glass panel displays.

What is also needed is someone like Apple, or the guys at Fore Flight to design the OS for these things. Garmin (the only one I can speak to) sucks at this. Their systems come with a pretty fat book and a PDF version of that fat book that you will either have to refer to again and again and again and again and again, or use a simulator a lot before flying, or hire a professional to train you... or all three. In this day and age, that's lame and dangerous.

In contrast, who read the instruction manual for the iPad, or to run Fore Flight?
 
Dav8or said:
What is also needed is someone like Apple, or the guys at Fore Flight to design the OS for these things. Garmin (the only one I can speak to) sucks at this.
Click to expand...

um, no. I love my mac(s), but Apple doesn't know sh** about safety critical software development. But, if you mean you want a better user interface, then sure, someone needs to improve the user interface.
 
Dav8or said:
I'm late to the thread and didn't read all the pages. I'm sure it's drifted into some reason why Obama is to blame for bad breath, but I'll say this about the original topic-

I don't like either. I like the glass technology better, but the displays they have now have a lot to be desired. In order to get buyers to part with $10K+ of their money, the manufacturers have tried to pack as much into a little box as they could. The result is much like those fat little Swiss Army knives, they do everything, but it's really hard to do anything with them.

IMO, a glass panel should be no harder to use than an iPad and Fore Flight. No 10 hours of dual just to go fly VFR. A PFD should be just that. No more info than the basic 6 pack. It should always be accompanied by a MFD. I am not convinced that tapes are better than dials for altitude and airspeed. What is needed is hybrid, or alternate glass panel displays.

What is also needed is someone like Apple, or the guys at Fore Flight to design the OS for these things. Garmin (the only one I can speak to) sucks at this. Their systems come with a pretty fat book and a PDF version of that fat book that you will either have to refer to again and again and again and again and again, or use a simulator a lot before flying, or hire a professional to train you... or all three. In this day and age, that's lame and dangerous.

In contrast, who read the instruction manual for the iPad, or to run Fore Flight?
Click to expand...
First, you I believe are the first person to mention Obama in this thread...it really is not always about Obama. Anyhow, the G1000 which is the only mounted glass system I am familiar with, and to use it as a 6 pack requires as much training as a six pack. To use its MFD to track where you are takes a minute more of training. I can probably teach you to use the very basic functions of the g1000(from 6 pack, to nav com, to MFD) in about ten minutes, no big book or difficulty there. The "difficulty" is in using its advanced functions which really are fairly intuitive and take practice to become familiar with. As far as user friendliness the G1000 is not bad at all. I have more issues with using other more mundane things. I also have a 796 and had a 696 and they were not bad either.

In the case of the G1000 I think the myth is much scarier than the reality.
 
douglas393 said:
I can probably teach you to use the very basic functions of the g1000(from 6 pack, to nav com, to MFD) in about ten minutes, no big book or difficulty there. The "difficulty" is in using its advanced functions which really are fairly intuitive and take practice to become familiar with. As far as user friendliness the G1000 is not bad at all. I have more issues with using other more mundane things. I also have a 796 and had a 696 and they were not bad either.

In the case of the G1000 I think the myth is much scarier than the reality.
Click to expand...

Yes, the basics are easy, and one can ignore the advanced functions VFR if they want to... But, if one desires to get the most out of it, it takes some practice. My biggest issues, early on, was turning the correct knob combination (outter/inner) for finding the page desired, and getting the entry sequence right for flight plans. After sufficient practice, it is now fairly easy. The instrumentation layout of the PFD was the least of my concern and easiest to get used to.
 
Dav8or said:
I'm late to the thread and didn't read all the pages. I'm sure it's drifted into some reason why Obama is to blame for bad breath, but I'll say this about the original topic-

I don't like either. I like the glass technology better, but the displays they have now have a lot to be desired. In order to get buyers to part with $10K+ of their money, the manufacturers have tried to pack as much into a little box as they could. The result is much like those fat little Swiss Army knives, they do everything, but it's really hard to do anything with them.

IMO, a glass panel should be no harder to use than an iPad and Fore Flight. No 10 hours of dual just to go fly VFR. A PFD should be just that. No more info than the basic 6 pack. It should always be accompanied by a MFD. I am not convinced that tapes are better than dials for altitude and airspeed. What is needed is hybrid, or alternate glass panel displays.

What is also needed is someone like Apple, or the guys at Fore Flight to design the OS for these things. Garmin (the only one I can speak to) sucks at this. Their systems come with a pretty fat book and a PDF version of that fat book that you will either have to refer to again and again and again and again and again, or use a simulator a lot before flying, or hire a professional to train you... or all three. In this day and age, that's lame and dangerous.

In contrast, who read the instruction manual for the iPad, or to run Fore Flight?
Click to expand...

The G-500 does pretty much what you ask for and is quite simple to use, it would be nice if it was touch screen though. The 430/530 architecture I agree is a full on Charlie Foxtrot, however the 650/750 architecture is about as intuitive as can be done. Remember, these boxes have to do a lot more than Foreflight to cover all the functions of an IFR environment.
 
Does Garmin just assume everyone flying has a million bucks?

Freakin' great now that I have a three year old 430W that must be completely ripped out, new tray, new harness, new everything for the new touch screen if I dare want one.

I wonder if it ever even crossed the engineer's minds to make it plug and play with the old trays and harness?
 
I wonder if it ever even crossed the engineer's minds to make it plug and play with the old trays and harness?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]


I am certain that someone at Garmin thought if it then yelled "Psych"
 
txflyer said:
Does Garmin just assume everyone flying has a million bucks?

Freakin' great now that I have a three year old 430W that must be completely ripped out, new tray, new harness, new everything for the new touch screen if I dare want one.

I wonder if it ever even crossed the engineer's minds to make it plug and play with the old trays and harness?
Click to expand...
I believe that was considered, but a) the screen on a 430-sized box would have been too small, and b) there were other functionalities that would not be compatible with the 430 tray and wiring. I think it was a good thing that they made the 430W plug-in compatible with the original 430, but by the time they got to the 650, that was no longer feasible. In any event, nobody's forcing you to replace your 430 with a 650 the way we're being forced to add ADS-B-out.
 
Ron Levy said:
I believe that was considered, but a) the screen on a 430-sized box would have been too small, and b) there were other functionalities that would not be compatible with the 430 tray and wiring. I think it was a good thing that they made the 430W plug-in compatible with the original 430, but by the time they got to the 650, that was no longer feasible. In any event, nobody's forcing you to replace your 430 with a 650 the way we're being forced to add ADS-B-out.
Click to expand...


Right on. It makes you feel like that guy in that SNL skit who buys a computer, and as he walks out the door with it, there's already an add for a newer computer. So he goes back, trades it, and then the same thing happens again. :mad2:

Only, we're spending $15K a pop!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top