No safety advantage of glass panels?

Fearless Tower

Fearless Tower

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
16,569
Location
Norfolk, VA
Display Name
Display name:
Fearless Tower
Just got this on AvWeb:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Report_NoSafetyAdvantageToGlassPanels_206250-1.html

February 29, 2012

Report: No Safety Advantage To Glass Panels

By Mary Grady, Contributing editor

The safety records of airplanes with glass panels are about the same as airplanes of the same model with analog cockpits, according to a new study by the Air Safety Institute, a division of the AOPA Foundation. However, "glass-panel aircraft may be more susceptible to accidents during takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds," the study found. The available data were insufficient to conclude what caused that difference. Some factors, according to the study, might include transition training, a tendency to fixate on the glass panels instead of external cues, or difficulty in interpreting airspeed and altitude from the glass-panel readouts compared to interpreting analog displays. The complete study, which provides an exhaustive and complex analysis of the data, is available free online (PDF).


"The vast majority of accidents [analyzed in the study] occurred in day VMC conditions, where the advantages of full glass instrumentation over analog may not be so great," said Bruce Landsberg, president of the AOPA Foundation. "The new technology aircraft pilots (Cirrus and Cessna Corvalis) apparently are having difficulty with basic airmanship relative to takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds." One reason might be the design of these airplanes, Landsberg said, which are relatively short, coupled with high wing loading and high power. This design requires "gentle application of power and solid application of rudder," he said. The study said that besides better transition training, another solution might be to provide better instrumentation for angle of attack. The NTSB also looked at glass-cockpit safety data in 2010
Click to expand...

Interesting observations on greater accident susceptibilty of glass panels on takeoff/landing/go-arounds.

Thoughts?
 
I read the conclusion, and the caveats. Compared to the peer-reviewed research I've found (which does show safety advantages in glass cockpits when used by professionals and amateurs trained on them), the ASF study doesn't say much.

Really, they looked at the accident data and said "we didn't see that TAA has made a big difference in the accident rate, based on comparing Cirrus and newer airframes against the Bonanza fleet."

I never have thought that putting a pilot in a glass airplane would make him safer, all by itself. But if you put a pilot in a glass airplane and teach him how to fly it and use the capabilities, AND to exercise good conservative judgement, that pilot will be safer than a pilot without the same bunch of tools in his bag.
 
For take-off and go around situational awareness, I like a flight director, the kind with the V bars. For landings, that plus an angle of attack indicator.
 
That is no surprise. The systems in the study were old rules interpretation instrumentation; there is no advantage there. It's not until you apply SVT to the glass that it revolutionizes the game to representational instrumentation.
 
People crash because they run out of fuel. Because they can't keep the airplane on the runway. Because they fly VFR into IMC.

They rarely crash because they couldn't interpret the data presented to them.

Sure, glass panels are pretty. And the installation shops and avionics manufacturers love pimping them, because that's a source of incremental sales. But (other than the reliability issues with vacuum systems) are they really a functional upgrade? IMO, not really.
 
kyleb said:
People crash because they fly VFR into IMC.

They rarely crash because they couldn't interpret the data presented to them.
Click to expand...

I'd have thought misinterpreting the data was the reason for a crash flying VFR into IMC. Can you explain a little more?
 
kyleb said:
People crash because they run out of fuel. Because they can't keep the airplane on the runway. Because they fly VFR into IMC.

They rarely crash because they couldn't interpret the data presented to them.

Sure, glass panels are pretty. And the installation shops and avionics manufacturers love pimping them, because that's a source of incremental sales. But (other than the reliability issues with vacuum systems) are they really a functional upgrade? IMO, not really.
Click to expand...

You get terrain and traffic and wx radar on your conventional panel?

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
 
kyleb said:
People crash because they run out of fuel. Because they can't keep the airplane on the runway. Because they fly VFR into IMC.

They rarely crash because they couldn't interpret the data presented to them.

Sure, glass panels are pretty. And the installation shops and avionics manufacturers love pimping them, because that's a source of incremental sales. But (other than the reliability issues with vacuum systems) are they really a functional upgrade? IMO, not really.
Click to expand...

Um, what? I heard the G1000 gives you up to date, moment to moment, weather on the runway (winds). Many small CA airports don't have an AWOS or TAF, so heck yes these tools will help pilots and be an "upgrade".
 
Also, I understand they often help you lean the mixture, complete your runup, etc. Many of my "six pack" planes don't have an EGT or carb temp. All of these I would consider "useful" and "upgrades".
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Um, what? I heard the G1000 gives you up to date, moment to moment, weather on the runway (winds). Many small CA airports don't have an AWOS or TAF, so heck yes these tools will help pilots and be an "upgrade".
Click to expand...

Nope.

What the G1000 will give you is datalink weather, uploaded from fields that DO have an AWOS or ASOS. It's usually 30 minutes old.

It's a GREAT tool as you're flying on an XC to see all the airports ahead go from green (VFR) to Blue (MVFR) to Red (IFR)...

But nothing beats getting the AWOS/ASOS/Tower/FBO to give you the weather right at the moment.

Now, will this information make you safer? That depends.
 
TMetzinger said:
Nope.

What the G1000 will give you is datalink weather, uploaded from fields that DO have an AWOS or ASOS. It's usually 30 minutes old.

It's a GREAT tool as you're flying on an XC to see all the airports ahead go from green (VFR) to Blue (MVFR) to Red (IFR)...

But nothing beats getting the AWOS/ASOS/Tower/FBO to give you the weather right at the moment.

Now, will this information make you safer? That depends.
Click to expand...

That's odd. They told me at my flight school the 172 gives you weather as it is in real time and you can land without looking out the window. Hmmm. Maybe they didn't know though "they" are the ones flying it.
 
Nope, and Nope. Somebody was bragging.

Now, the G1000 will do all the math so it will show you the wind at your altitude based on your heading, ground track, and airspeed. That's real time. A strikefinder (lightning detector) is real time. But the datalink weather is from the XM weather feeds, and it's anywhere from 15 - 60+ minutes old depending on the product. That's why you'll hear everyone say it's a strategic (for planning looking ahead 30+ minutes) rather than a tactical (right this second) tool.
 
TMetzinger said:
I never have thought that putting a pilot in a glass airplane would make him safer, all by itself. But if you put a pilot in a glass airplane and teach him how to fly it and use the capabilities, AND to exercise good conservative judgement, that pilot will be safer than a pilot without the same bunch of tools in his bag.
Click to expand...

Amen.
I received not only good instruction on the various systems and proper use of the G-1000 by a well qualified CFI ...but also the PC simulator. He told me to practice at home, which really helped. I'm no expert but it definitely eases the workload. As a VFR pilot, I constantly remind myself not to get fixated on the glass and to keep up a good scan at all times.

I love it:yesnod:
 
jnmeade said:
I'd have thought misinterpreting the data was the reason for a crash flying VFR into IMC. Can you explain a little more?
Click to expand...

My belief is that VFR into IMC accidents occur because people can't maintain control "on the gauges". It doesn't matter if the gauges are round dials or a flat panel. If you can't process and act on the information, its trouble.
 
No argument that if you can't fly on instruments, you can't fly in instruments.

But in-cockpit weather depictions CAN give you warning that you're flying towards IMC, no?

During daytime, the VFR-into-IMC is the result of bad decision-making by the pilot. You can see the weather is crappy, why do you keep flying towards it? It doesn't sneak up on you.

Glass doesn't help. Where it MAY help is that as your 1 hour into your 3 hour XC you see that all the reporting stations near your destination are changing color from VFR to MVFR or IFR. If you get that clue BEFORE you're on top of it and infected with "almost-there-itis", maybe you land early.
 
kyleb said:
My belief is that VFR into IMC accidents occur because people can't maintain control "on the gauges". It doesn't matter if the gauges are round dials or a flat panel. If you can't process and act on the information, its trouble.
Click to expand...


Exactly, as long as you are having to do all this interpretation of data streams to get a picture of attitude and situational/spacial awareness, you are at the same disadvantage.
 
TMetzinger said:
You get terrain and traffic and wx radar on your conventional panel?

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No, I can't. But I can get it on about $1,500 worth of portable devices. Far more cost effective than spending tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade from a steam gauge panel to a glass panel.
 
TMetzinger said:
Glass doesn't help. Where it MAY help is that as your 1 hour into your 3 hour XC you see that all the reporting stations near your destination are changing color from VFR to MVFR or IFR. If you get that clue BEFORE you're on top of it and infected with "almost-there-itis", maybe you land early.
Click to expand...

But the NTSB study says weather-related accidents are higher in glass cockpit aircraft.

Besides the advantage you speak of is an advantage of convenience, not safety. There's always been flight watch and other tools at your disposal.
 
dmspilot said:
But the NTSB study says weather-related accidents are higher in glass cockpit aircraft.

Besides the advantage you speak of is an advantage of convenience, not safety. There's always been flight watch and other tools at your disposal.
Click to expand...

Not always. There are lots of places where a VFR pilot may be out of reach of flight watch.

But "easy" CAN increase safety.

It just can't fix stupid.
 
TMetzinger said:
Nope.

What the G1000 will give you is datalink weather, uploaded from fields that DO have an AWOS or ASOS. It's usually 30 minutes old.
Click to expand...

She could be talking about the wind vector that the system calculates.
 
I can't believe it's already time for another TAA thread.

How can you possibly make assumptions about what technology is safer unless you know all the underlying data. When it comes to GA we don't. No one knows how often a given airplane/pilot flies, where, or in what conditions. What we can do is a simple NTSB search, filter by year, make, model, to determine a TAA from those that came from the factory as a 6 pack. Compare to GAMA production numbers. Then we can calculate a bunch of junk data and make assumptions.

I can think of many 6 pack small GA aircraft that are FAR safer than airliners. They are parked in various states of degradation row after row at airports across the country. They're as safe as your living room couch since they don't move, but not quite as useful, yet they get included in the data since they are a U.S. registered aircraft.

Needle, ball, and airspeed = crazy safe IMO:)
 
TMetzinger said:
I never have thought that putting a pilot in a glass airplane would make him safer, all by itself. But if you put a pilot in a glass airplane and teach him how to fly it and use the capabilities, AND to exercise good conservative judgement, that pilot will be safer than a pilot without the same bunch of tools in his bag.
Click to expand...
How is it that you leap to that conclusion? That pilot is no safer than the one who doens't have the tools, and has to good judgement not to go into the "grey zone".

The well equipped pilot will be more CAPABLE. That's a completely different statement.
 
bbchien said:
How is it that you leap to that conclusion? That pilot is no safer than the one who doens't have the tools, and has to good judgement not to go into the "grey zone".

The well equipped pilot will be more CAPABLE. That's a completely different statement.
Click to expand...

Safer while actually flying. The pilot without the tools may (wisely) choose to eliminate the risk by not flying. The one with the tools may use them to better manage the risk while flying.

I think we're in agreement. The well equipped pilot is more CAPABLE of operating safely in a wider range of conditions.

Whether he DOES or not is a question about the pilot, not the equipment.
 
Here's my takeaway- glass panels have some advantages and can bring a lot more situational awareness into the cockpit. But none of that will do you a damn bit of good if you don't fly the airplane in the first place. Glass won't make up for deficient stick and rudder skills.
 
There are two types of instrument panels; Interpretative panels and Representative panels. You can do interpretative in glass or dials but you can only do representative on glass.
 
TMetzinger said:
It's a GREAT tool as you're flying on an XC to see all the airports ahead go from green (VFR) to Blue (MVFR) to Red (IFR)...
Click to expand...

I have to say, if you didn't read the weather forecast well enough to know there'd be a widespread change ahead on your route to IFR conditions, your accident chain started long before you got in the cockpit.
 
denverpilot said:
I have to say, if you didn't read the weather forecast well enough to know there'd be a widespread change ahead on your route to IFR conditions, your accident chain started long before you got in the cockpit.
Click to expand...

Yes. Wx forecasts are always right, aren't they? In-Cockpit WX may add a chance to detect the change earlier and break that chain.

I'm not saying that the technology is a fix for every stupid pilot trick. It adds it's own challenges to use it properly. But it's not without value when properly used.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I have heard some of the folks at the field tell me that they would fly in more marginal conditions because they had the "tools" (whatever that may be) to do so with an advanced panel / glass cockpit. Hubris, and flawed decisionmaking will always get one in trouble, no matter what type of panel they have.

It is way too easy to fall under that spell. The other issue that I can see here is what happens when the system craps out on you in flight and you depend on the minimal backups usually placed in areas of the panel left over from the glass installation that don't lend them selves to a really good scan.

I would also like to see a safety study comparing upgraded aircraft (ie steam gauges to glass) vs aircraft built with glass panels from the get go....might provide interesting data down the road.
 
DutchessFlier said:
I have heard some of the folks at the field tell me that they would fly in more marginal conditions because they had the "tools" (whatever that may be) to do so with an advanced panel / glass cockpit. Hubris, and flawed decisionmaking will always get one in trouble, no matter what type of panel they have.
Click to expand...

The whole point of adding capabilities is to use them, isn't it? Ted uses his redundancy and anti-ice capabilities to fly in stuff he'd never attempt in a single (like flying around the pattern ;) ). I'd use the capabilities of a G1000 airplane with XM wx to take a cross country in summer with a chance of thunderstorms that I likely wouldn't do without the XM wx, because of the ability to get a better idea of if/how/where the storms are long before I reach them.

But the trick is to use the capabilities WISELY, not as a way to compensate for a pilot's lack of skills. I fully agree with Ted that Cirrus marketing has done a disservice to it's buyers and perhaps GA in general.
I also agree with Ron that the Cirrus is a fine airplane with lots of capabilities when flown by a well-trained airman.
 
DutchessFlier said:
I have heard some of the folks at the field tell me that they would fly in more marginal conditions because they had the "tools" (whatever that may be) to do so with an advanced panel / glass cockpit. Hubris, and flawed decisionmaking will always get one in trouble, no matter what type of panel they have.
Click to expand...
I think there is a lot of truth to this. People subconsciously have a certain level of risk they are willing to take. For example, if you have no capability for uplink weather you might cancel a trip sooner than if you had the capability given the same weather. Therefore you are taking about the same risk although your mission completion rate will be higher.
 
jnmeade said:
For take-off and go around situational awareness, I like a flight director, the kind with the V bars. For landings, that plus an angle of attack indicator.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be using a flight director for a go around in a light single. You should be heads up and flying by visual references. At least until you enter the clouds.
 
dell30rb said:
You shouldn't be using a flight director for a go around in a light single. You should be heads up and flying by visual references. At least until you enter the clouds.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY. A flight director is great for a missed approach in IMC. If you are in VMC your eyes should be looking outside.
 
If you like a Flight Director, you're gonna **** yourself with joy when you fly SVT. You don't need to buy an autopilot to get a FD anymore either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top