Glass cockpit vs steam gauges

jordane93

jordane93

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
10,663
Location
Long Island, NY
Display Name
Display name:
Jordan
which do you guys prefer. ive always been a fan of steam gauges. i started out my training in steam gauges and i feel like im a better pilot. i never really go into all the fancy avidyne suite or garmin perspective. all that stuff is cool but i like all the old school stuff. i feel as though students do not learn as much if they had glass training. its all about fundamentals and i think you get the best learning experience from steam gauges. Yes we are in a world where if you want to be an airline pilot, 99% of those planes will have a glass cockpit, but those guys all learned the old school way which i like. I guess i get it from my father, he's flown the dc 9 for 10 years and was a check airman for delta/northwest. a few years ago he moved onto the 747 and currently the 767. he said it was totally new to him and a lot of guys were able to transition easier because they had a glass cockpit in their other planes. What do you guys think?
 
I like both for different reasons. I've had students ask that same question. Usually what I tell them is get one rating in one type and one in the other. If I had to pick, I'd probably still lean towards conventional for private and glass for the instrument. Most aircraft available for rent are conventional but if you plan to go professional, it's good to have experience in the glass. I didn't get any of my primary training in glass. The first experience I had with it was after 2 hours of training I was expected to teach in a G1000. Thankfully because of that teaching while learning experience, I was able to transition into the Citation Mustang with little effort.
 
Have both in my airplane.like the glass now that I am comfortable with it.
 
No preference, really, since the choice of avionics isn't really going to affect the flight characteristics of the aircraft.

Yes, An Aspen or Garmin solution might add some additional situational awareness. But it won't change how the airplane flys.

It's like adding a top end stereo to a pick up truck. There's no significant change to the load capacity or fuel mileage... Just more entertainment value.

If an affordable to own/operate/rent aircraft was available and had a glass solution, sure, I would be happy to fly it. But I'm also just as happy with my current round dial setup in the Skylane I'm partnered in.
 
I prefer the glass cockpit of my old cirrus versus the steam guages of the 172 I learned in. The glass cockpit had an easier scan and a lot more information was available to me. I will not go back to steam guages.
 
jordane93 said:
which on do you prefer and why?
Click to expand...

The one that better fits my mission.

I don't fly panels. I fly airplanes.

It so happens that the highest useful load (and cheapest 4-seat) aircraft I have access to is a 172N with a 180 HP engine conversion and two nav/comms. The most comfy is a 177RG with two nav/comms and a flaky autopilot (don't use). A cheaper alternative that isn't as fast but has a good coupled autopilot is an Archer with a 430 and Aspen. And so on.

I could see where the glass might be helpful for instrument scans, and that may become important. But it's not now. Staring at a PFD is not a good idea in VMC.
 
"Primacy of learning" is a term to describe the observation that what we learn first, we retain best. In a few years, I suspect it's going to be difficult to find new steam gauges, and expensive or impossible to overhaul old ones, so I'm going to try to fly aircraft with at least a "ribbon"-based EFIS whenever possible.

I'm probably a year or two away from having my own aircraft, but when I do I'll go for glass, even though it seems like overkill in what will likely be a near-ultralight. I want all the hours I'll spend flying it to be experience in what will be in every aircraft in 10 years.
 
For primary training and local stuff steam and glass do the exact same thin, but glass gives you a few more crutches you may have to later wean yourself off of.

For post-PPL, either works but I prefer glass.

OTOH, while you should navigate primarily by pilotage and ded reckoning for VFR, any traveling plane that does not have some form of moving map with airspace is woefully outdated IMO.
 
I worry about two Rs, redundancy and reliance. Glass lacks redundancy for some kinds of failures, for example an electrical failure from a short circuit that grounds out any redundant electrical equipment, or on a single screen, a failure that affects the screen. So called steam gauges can be subject to a vacuum pump failure, but there are redundant vacuum systems, and there can be electrical backup to vacuum systems, including the turn and bank. Reliance is more serious. If you rely on your glass panel too much, for example, not carrying charts, or not continually verifying your position at some short interval, such as every ten minutes, then if you have a failure, you could be in real trouble. This could be even more serious should it happen in IFR conditions. Having a glass panel can increase situational awareness, but only if you are careful not to get complacent and over rely on the glass panel.
 
Frank said:
I worry about two Rs, redundancy and reliance. Glass lacks redundancy for some kinds of failures, for example an electrical failure from a short circuit that grounds out any redundant electrical equipment, or on a single screen, a failure that affects the screen. So called steam gauges can be subject to a vacuum pump failure, but there are redundant vacuum systems, and there can be electrical backup to vacuum systems, including the turn and bank.
Click to expand...
That's why the FAA requires redundant back-up flight instruments in glass cockpits. Even a complete failure of the electrical power system when your back-up AI is electric leaves you with back-up power to the back-up electric AI for at least 30 minutes by regulation, and as much as an hour and a half in the DA-40 by design. The manufacturer must demonstrate that it is not possible to lose both primary and back-up attitude instruments due to a single failure. See 14 CFR 23.1311 and the relevant certification AC's for details.

So, in a glass cockpit, no single point failure will take away all of your attitude indications. OTOH, in classic steam-gauge airplanes, even if you have some sort of standby vacuum pump, there are several possible single-point vacuum failures besides the vacuum pump itself, and some of those result in irrevocable loss of all attitude indications, forcing reliance on "needle/ball/airspeed" to estimate attitude.
 
Last edited:
I play video games at home. Why spend $50,75-100k to make a real airplane act like a video game.

If that is what flying is to you, go for it but it has nothing to do with the flying I do.

I want to get in at Wichita and get out at Miami 5 hrs later. All the rest is just distraction and fluff.

I do like autopilot but its not absolutely necessary, I do like GPS but it is not absolutely necessary.
 
That's a good start, and it goes a very long way. But it is not true that there are no single point failures that will take away all attitude information. An electrical fire will.

The Aspen panels at least have a battery override, and if there is smoke coming out of the panel, you WILL push it, as they run hot as hell and would seem quite likely to participate in the fault. Fortunately, most installations have vacuum powered standby AIs, as they are generally steam gauge retrofits. But the expensive 2 and 3 screen retros may do away with that.
 
If you go glass, go all the way with SVT, that's where glass really makes the difference. Situational awareness goes from a complex formula of scanning and interpretation to a glance.
 
I learned on steam and liked it. I didn't understand the benefits of glass and didn't feel it made sense, especially for the cost.

Now I have glass, love it, and wouldn't want to go back (although I could). The Aspen just has much more functionality where at a single glance I know all the important details of my flight. I have steam backups as required, but feel that glass helps my situational awareness greatly, especially the combination of Aspen/530W/430W.
 
Tristar said:
I like both for different reasons. I've had students ask that same question. Usually what I tell them is get one rating in one type and one in the other. If I had to pick, I'd probably still lean towards conventional for private and glass for the instrument. Most aircraft available for rent are conventional but if you plan to go professional, it's good to have experience in the glass. I didn't get any of my primary training in glass. The first experience I had with it was after 2 hours of training I was expected to teach in a G1000. Thankfully because of that teaching while learning experience, I was able to transition into the Citation Mustang with little effort.
Click to expand...

Did PPL in steam gauges and IR on G1000. Now own a DA40 with G1000 and much prefer glass for IFR. For VFR I'm indifferent.
 
Zackly. Most of the arguments supporting steam gages are from those who don't understand the benefits of glass, or haven't flown it enough to appreciate the features and benefits it provides. In a nice-to-have vs need-to-have argument, an absolute need would be difficult to prove but the nice would quickly be apparent.

Ted DuPuis said:
I learned on steam and liked it. I didn't understand the benefits of glass and didn't feel it made sense, especially for the cost.

Now I have glass, love it, and wouldn't want to go back (although I could). The Aspen just has much more functionality where at a single glance I know all the important details of my flight. I have steam backups as required, but feel that glass helps my situational awareness greatly, especially the combination of Aspen/530W/430W.
Click to expand...
 
I learned in a steam gauge 172, and bought a G1000 T182T. Bottom line at the end of the day it is 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. Neither set up will make you a good pilot, nor will either set up make you a bad pilot. The hopes of the glass cockpit decreasing the GA accident rate just did not occur. Why? Because it is not the plane that makes the pilot, its the pilot that makes the pilot, and the vast majority of accidents are not because of faulty instrumentation, or faulty planes, but are from pilot mistakes, lack of attention to detail, and other pilot controlled issues.

My big concern with glass cockpits, as I have mentioned in other posts is that the screen controls everything, and when it goes everything goes. Making sure you have adequate backup and know how to use it is required. Most of the glass cockpits I have seen have three steam gauges as their backup (an AI, ASI, and altimeter), and a compass. This is enough to let you limp to safety, but you lose a lot too. Furthermore often the backups are in an inconvenient location to be used in complete comfort. I carry a handheld radio, and a 796 for further back up. Thought briefly about an independent NAV/COM, and AOA, but decided with a lot of help from POA that it was not needed.

My second and really bigger concern with glass cockpits is longevity. I am concerned that sooner than later support for G1000, and other early generation glass cockpits will be pulled by their appropriate manufacturers and not sure how they are going to help us when these systems break down. How many 10 year old computers are out there? Not many I would think. How many 20 year old or older steam gauges? A lot more I would think. I am experiencing this with my glass cockpit for my boat. I have 1st generation furuno navnets, an after 13 years the screens have given up the ghost. Furuno says all I can due is use 2nd generation screens, but when those fail and they will the 3rd generation(on the market for over one year) will be incompatible with my analog radar, GPS, and depth finder and I will need to replace everything). Will the glass cockpit manufacturers be the same?
 
MAKG1 said:
That's a good start, and it goes a very long way. But it is not true that there are no single point failures that will take away all attitude information. An electrical fire will.
Click to expand...
A fire is hardly a single-point failure, and only if the electrical fire reaches the back-up power wires will it affect the back-up AI anyway. And an electrical fire can take out your vacuum instruments, too, so that's not exactly germane.

Personally, I really like glass panel systems because they provide so much more information in a much better organized manner. My problem with them is that they also have a much larger array of possible failure modes, and I find that glass panel pilots are rarely proficient in the modes which require pulling c/b's to examine. My experience is that pilots have the most trouble with AHRS failure (of which there is only one in the DA40), and a lot of trouble with magnetometer failure, and you can't simulate those any way by pulling the c/b. The popular "dim the PFD and push the red button" exercise really tests nothing but the pilot's twisted neck endurance. Pilots also often do not know what they'll have left in those situations, as it varies with the specific item which failed.

OTOH, pilots with vacuum 6-packs tend to be somewhat better when they lose the AI/HI as that is generally viewed as a likely occurrence, it is simple to simulate, it has only one result, there isn't much else to fail that creates an equal level of difficulty, and they've usually had a lot of practice with it over the years in training and IPC's.

But these are training issues, not fundamental weaknesses of the systems. If people were more willing to pull c/b's (or did more training in sims like the one I carry around where you can do these failures without worrying about wearing out the breakers), the glass panel failure mode issues would go away.
 
Last edited:
steam - because it's less expensive than glass.
 
Whatever you choose, just stick with that one type. I believe you will hinder your progress if you keep flipping back and forth between glass and steam.
 
For training - Steam. Preferably without GPS until after the ability to paint the moving map in your head is learned.

But, for flying - I prefer glass. A large part of piloting is making decisions, and the glass generally gives you more information to make better informed decisions with.
 
my best flight was in a 152 from KFRG to KACK doing about 60 kts GS with cars passing me! dont get me wrong, i am totally not against glass cockpits or gps's. i just took my instrument checkride in a 172 with a 2 430W's. the gps definitional aids in situational awareness and i was able to spot planes with the traffic advisories on the GPS. i would just never do a glass cockpit for VFR training. for me i would get too distracted and forget the 90 , 10 rule. it would be the opposite for me
 
I learned instrument on the G1000. I've got reasonable amounts of time behind both the G1000 and Avidyne systems, with a bit of Aspen, GRT and Dynon systems. I like them all. That said, whatever I'm getting paid to fly, I'll fly. That being the case, right now, it's /A, non-digital radios.
 
I have a friend who was a Delta Capt. a number of years ago and told me that the switch from steam to glass cockpits started him thinking he was headed towards retirement.

(Pension issues were the final factor)

He said it came to him as he was doing Sim training with a young kid in the right seat who reminded him that the sticky gauge he was tapping was glass…:goofy:

He now flies a glass cockpitted Cessna citation sovereign for a high profile client in the Midwest.

Even old dogs can learn new tricks
 
JimG. said:
I have a friend who was a Delta Capt. a number of years ago and told me that the switch from steam to glass cockpits started him thinking he was headed towards retirement.

(Pension issues were the final factor)

He said it came to him as he was doing Sim training with a young kid in the right seat who reminded him that the sticky gauge he was tapping was glass…:goofy:

He now flies a glass cockpitted Cessna citation sovereign for a high profile client in the Midwest.

Even old dogs can learn new tricks
Click to expand...

That's not even 'real glass' it's solid state steam. You don't get 'real glass' until you get SVT.
 
attachment.php


'Nuff Said
 

Attachments

  • Steam.jpg
    Steam.jpg
    188.2 KB · Views: 150
asgcpa said:
Whatever you choose, just stick with that one type. I believe you will hinder your progress if you keep flipping back and forth between glass and steam.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. One at a time, perhaps.

I did wait until after my checkride to transition to the Aspens and the Garmin 430W. But, now, I can use them interchangeably. I absolutely don't hesitate to use an aircraft just because it has glass. The 172 I soloed in has just recently been retrofitted with a brand new Aspen Evolution. So, of course I tried it out. It's $20/hour more expensive than its steam gauge cousin, but I'll use it if it's the only one available (which is common, as it requires a TAA checkout now). It's a nice plane now that the dead HSI is gone. Flying mag compass is an important skill, but it's not much fun.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
For training - Steam. Preferably without GPS until after the ability to paint the moving map in your head is learned.

But, for flying - I prefer glass. A large part of piloting is making decisions, and the glass generally gives you more information to make better informed decisions with.
Click to expand...

^^This^^

I learned on steam and now fly both. When I got back into the cockpit after ten years, I went right to glass.

The G1000 is incredible!
Believe it or not, my first taste of glass was in FSX. Thanks Microsoft:).
 
wabower said:
Zackly. Most of the arguments supporting steam gages are from those who don't understand the benefits of glass, or haven't flown it enough to appreciate the features and benefits it provides. In a nice-to-have vs need-to-have argument, an absolute need would be difficult to prove but the nice would quickly be apparent.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm looking forward to the synthetic vision upgrade. Debating how we want to go about it - pairing with an extra 500 or 1000 or just on its own - but it will happen, and I think within the next year. Since Aspen does a good job of making the technology easily upgradeable bit by bit, they make it so that any order really ends up making sense.

douglas393 said:
I learned in a steam gauge 172, and bought a G1000 T182T. Bottom line at the end of the day it is 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. Neither set up will make you a good pilot, nor will either set up make you a bad pilot. The hopes of the glass cockpit decreasing the GA accident rate just did not occur. Why? Because it is not the plane that makes the pilot, its the pilot that makes the pilot, and the vast majority of accidents are not because of faulty instrumentation, or faulty planes, but are from pilot mistakes, lack of attention to detail, and other pilot controlled issues.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that that's part of the issue with glass not reducing the accident rate, but I also think some of it might have to do with people not fully appreciating and using the benefits correctly, or using the benefits decidedly incorrectly. Example: "I have synthetic vision, so I can fly at night near terrain." Incorrect usage.

My big concern with glass cockpits, as I have mentioned in other posts is that the screen controls everything, and when it goes everything goes. Making sure you have adequate backup and know how to use it is required. Most of the glass cockpits I have seen have three steam gauges as their backup (an AI, ASI, and altimeter), and a compass. This is enough to let you limp to safety, but you lose a lot too. Furthermore often the backups are in an inconvenient location to be used in complete comfort. I carry a handheld radio, and a 796 for further back up. Thought briefly about an independent NAV/COM, and AOA, but decided with a lot of help from POA that it was not needed.
Click to expand...

The "all on one screen" failure mode is something that I didn't like about the 430/530 series and especially the G1000 series. I'm still not thrilled with the G1000. There's a reason why Part 25 aircraft typically have 5 screens across the office instead of 2, and I think that's a weakness of the G1000. The G500/600 I think do a bit better just because the two halves of the screen are right in front of you, and Aspen does it better since you can have three screens right in front of you with two ADAHRS backups. When my Aspen failed, it was annoying. If I'd had a second Aspen 1000 in, just flip the switch for the AP to source from the #2 unit and I'm back to normal.

My second and really bigger concern with glass cockpits is longevity. I am concerned that sooner than later support for G1000, and other early generation glass cockpits will be pulled by their appropriate manufacturers and not sure how they are going to help us when these systems break down. How many 10 year old computers are out there? Not many I would think. How many 20 year old or older steam gauges? A lot more I would think. I am experiencing this with my glass cockpit for my boat. I have 1st generation furuno navnets, an after 13 years the screens have given up the ghost. Furuno says all I can due is use 2nd generation screens, but when those fail and they will the 3rd generation(on the market for over one year) will be incompatible with my analog radar, GPS, and depth finder and I will need to replace everything). Will the glass cockpit manufacturers be the same?
Click to expand...

I used to share this same concern as well, but ultimately I think the forced obsolescence may not be a bad thing. For one, aviation digital items seem to be getting lots of support. GPSs that are 20 years old are still going strong, and the 430/530 will be getting supported for a while to come. But if they stop getting supported, there will be options for upgrading and taking advantage of the latest and greatest.

Compare that to steam gauges where there's not been much for meaningful changes in technology since the advent of the HSI and blue over brown AIs. They still break in the same old way, which is typically dying a slow death that allows pilots to continue limping along with them because "Egh, they're not that bad." Not that great, and then pilots will typically just rebuild the same one and keep on flying. No wonder the fleet is still filled with old technology.
 
Mission dependent. If I was head down IR all the time, I'd go glass, it's just superior informational system, and provides the pilot with a lot more data, prolly most times more than is needed or wanted.

If I were heads up all the time, I prefer steam. Less cost, trouble, easy mx and easy to use.
 
Started out with steam, upgraded the plane with a Dynon EFIS and EMS, kept the steam altimeter, VSI, airspeed and inclinometer. My wife and I love flying with the Dynon. The ability to reconfigure the displays in flight for whichever of us has the airplane is very cool.
 
My second and really bigger concern with glass cockpits is longevity. I am concerned that sooner than later support for G1000, and other early generation glass cockpits will be pulled by their appropriate manufacturers and not sure how they are going to help us when these systems break down. How many 10 year old computers are out there? Not many I would think. How many 20 year old or older steam gauges? A lot more I would think. I am experiencing this with my glass cockpit for my boat. I have 1st generation furuno navnets, an after 13 years the screens have given up the ghost. Furuno says all I can due is use 2nd generation screens, but when those fail and they will the 3rd generation(on the market for over one year) will be incompatible with my analog radar, GPS, and depth finder and I will need to replace everything). Will the glass cockpit manufacturers be the same?
Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on the head, Douglas. The glass is going to be more expensive for the owner over the long term.
 
RotorAndWing said:
BS.gif
Click to expand...

Operationally, what is the difference between non SVT glass and 'steam gauges'? You still have to take multiple abstract information inputs and interpret them into a situational awareness picture, something the three pilots in the front of AF447 failed to be able to do. SVT it's displayed in an intuitive 3D picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top