CrustyFE

Great discussion on steam v glass. But there's another point in the comparison that hasn't been made.

Safety. Glass has a distinct advantage.

In my opinion glass is safer than steam gauges with vacuum pumps in a few different ways. This discussion applies to most aircraft found at a part 61/141 flight school, but can apply for any other aircraft depending on how it's equipped.


1st, Reliability: An AHRS (attitude heading reference system) is much more reliable and accurate than a mechanical attitude indicator and directional gyro. The failure rate is much less. There is no high time removal for an AHRS. Vacuum pumps have a 2000 hour life span and must be replaced. That's a fact of reliability alone. Vacuum pumps also tend to fail sooner than 2000 hours in many cases. However, an air data computer (ADC) can suffer from the same sensor failures as any steam gauge (Air France 447) but the indicators are more reliable than mechanical indicators simply because glass indicators have no moving parts.

Glass relies on electrical systems while vacuum systems rely on engine driven vacuum pumps. Okay, older aircraft may have venturi powered vacuum systems, but they aren't going IMC, at least legally. Electrical systems in aircraft with AHRS/ADC systems have to have some type of redundancy. Even a Cessna 172 with the Garmin 1000 system has a vastly improved electrical system compared to their older vacuum powered counterparts. Many GA aircraft have two alternators and/or batteries to ensure reliability.


2nd, Information provided: AHRS includes a horizontal situation indicator (HSI). Steam may or may not have an HSI. Most flight school aircraft with steam have directional gyros. That's just another thing that increases pilot workload because they must remember to periodically adjust the DG.


3rd, Back up: A Garmin 1000 or Avidyn Entegra system always has back up mechanical and/or electronic indicators for all primary instruments. Aircraft with steam gauges usually don't have any backup indicators. Once a vacuum pump fails there's no back up. If the AHRS or ADC does fail, there's always a back up. That's a big benefit if you're IMC.

In one of the aircraft I flew, the Lancair Columbia 400 (2004) with the Avidyn Entegra system, the AHRS failed on an IMC flight. A red X appeared over the attitude indication and HSI. The autopilot was engaged at the time but it continued to fly the flight plan without any deviation because it's attitude source was it's own separate gyro and it's NAV source was GPS #1, a Garmin 430. The AHRS realigned and restored itself on it's own within about five minutes. It was a non-event. But even if the system did not restore, the back up attitude indicator worked just fine.


4th, Failure indications: If an AHRS or ADC fails, it's usually always indicated promptly with a big red X over the indication. There are a few exceptions such as blocked static and/or pitot ports, or a loosely mounted AHRS remote unit or other rare malfunction.

When a vacuum pump fails there may be an indicator in some aircraft to indicate a failure, but not all aircraft have an indicator for vacuum system failure. The FAA doesn't require it. So the FAA made up for that by requiring pilots to be trained to identify a vacuum system failure by recognizing the subtle indications given by a failing vacuum system. It's part of instrument training. Because those indications can be, and usually are subtle, they can be unrecognized for a period of time or not at all. Training and vigilance are key to identifying a vacuum indication failure.

Another failure indication with some steam indicators can be a high pitch whining from an internal bearing failure. Such is the case with many turn and bank indicators that are electrically powered. They may not have any indication that a bearing is failing, but if there's a whining noise that changes pitch when the yaw or roll axis is changed, it's probably the turn and bank indicator. If you're an A&P you can verify that by opening the circuit breaker for that indicator and see if the whining spools down.

But of all the failure modes and indications possible, I prefer a big instant red X over a subtle indication that may take more than a few minutes to figure out, if at all. There's no figuring out a red X. You just revert to your back up indicators and handle the failure as per procedures.



Glass does not give an aircraft any more capability in and of itself. But it does provide the pilot with more precise, more reliable, and less ambiguous information. It enhances the pilot's potential to determine the best course of action to take for any given situation. Glass can also decrease the workload. But it's up to the pilot to study, know, and understand all the systems and functions of the aircraft in which they are flying. Glass will not provide anything to a pilot who does not know how to use it. In fact, glass can increase the potential for an incident or accident if the pilot doesn't know how to use it. Training is key to anything in aviation, especially glass.

But when comparing safety for a pilot who receives proper training in either glass or steam, I'll go with the glass every time.

bcrosier

Everything you've said is true, but I believe you've drawn the completely wrong conclusion based on the OP's question.

If he were asking what should he buy or rent for general flying, I would agree completely with you for all of the reasons you have enumerated. That isn't the case - he inquired what he should utilize for INITIAL IFR training.

Based on my personal experience, and that of instructors, check airmen, APD's, and a FAA type (off the record, of course), one is much better off learning to fly IFR using a non-glass aircraft. Maintaining SA in that environment is more challenging, and develops skills that can (and should) be drawn on later.

An aviator NEEDS to develop the cross check skills, workload management skills, and the ability to fly with systems inoperative. They need to be able detect subtle failures in the aircraft's systems, and deal with those failures. Again, a big red X, while more effective at communicating the failure, does not enhance the pilots skills at detecting when things are almost going right, but not quite.

Yes, there is a LOT more information presented with glass, and that does provide a challenge all it's own, but I don't believe digesting all that information is truly the key skill which needs to be developed initially.

Learn the fundamentals first, then add the "icing on the cake." Again, if someone was asking about what to rent or buy in general, you are 100% correct, glass has MANY advantages, but that wasn't the question.

Cubdriver

The mysterious actor here is that of human psychology. If glass accident rates are above those of steam gauges and yet glass panels have a decided advantage in terms of quality and quantity of flight information, the end result negates the idea that more and better information provides higher safety in the demographic in question. I suspect that better and more accurate instruments lull the user into complacency. I think what is going on is the users are not getting enough hours to develop adequate IR skills and they are being wowed by the panel into putting their brains on hold. At any rate, no one is arguing that glass is inferior but when glass is combined with the typical user the results are not what we want to see. Perhaps the critical element is that of trust- if a pilot trusts the panel beyond some critical level they also cease trying to maintain adequate situational awareness. Maybe what we should train is not how to use these systems as much as how to avoid being lulled into false sense of security.

Anecdote. When I worked for a major GA manufacturer as a flight instructor I was the only CFI who deliberately pulled all the breakers on the panel to see what my students would do looking at dead-glass lcds. Most of them had no idea what basic attitude flying was about. This is what made me think that glass before basic airmanship is established is a bad idea.

flysail

where is the C182 with glass?? are you an owner or a renter I am looking for a c182 g1000 in the North east thanks

pokey9554

Go with the steam. Hopefully, someday you'll become a CFI. You'll learn about the law of primacy. The information you learn first, will be retained longer than any subsequent teachings. Maybe some other airline peeps can back me up on this, but when the FMS quits on the aircraft I fly, we become as sophisticated as a C-150. Yes, the screens are glass, but we're flying using old school (steam gauge) methods. Glass is easy when it works, but when it quits, which it will, having a library of information burned in your head from initial training will only benefit you.

Senior Skipper

In concurrence with all the reasons mentioned above, go with the 6 pack. As a CFI, it was always scary watching somebody who'd only flown glass try and shoot an approach using a six pack. The other way around was a much better performance.

bcrosier

Agreed. Also, at least on the glass airliners I've flown, our glass is in many ways less sophisticated than the G-1000 (as I understand it).

CrustyFE

The original question is G1000 vs Analog. I think the safety issues addresses a valid point.

My point about safety is that during training, or any time, it's safer to fly with a glass flight deck then steam gauges during IMC. That's for all the reasons I listed. But that has nothing to do with training. It's just safer.

As far as training on a six pack goes, it's not that valuable if all one is going to do is fly glass. If there is a failure of any glass system, then what's left won't be a six pack, it will be standby instruments located uniquely for each aircraft. There's no standard configuration for standby instruments. A six pack is easy to fly compared to most standby instruments in a glass cockpit. Simulating system failures for glass and forcing students to rely on standby instruments is the appropriate training for flying that type of aircraft.

There's a delusion that it's either easier to scan a glass panel or no scanning is required at all. Nothing is further from the truth. Scanning skills apply to glass aircraft as much as they apply to a six pack aircraft. The scan is very similar between both technologies because the primary instruments are usually placed in the same locations. In fact, Continental 737's have glass panels that have pictures of analog indicators in a standard six pack configuration. But even primary instruments with a tape display are located in the same positions with the exception of the rate of climb indicator in some glass configurations.

Teaching a student to scan a six pack won't help them any more than teaching them to scan a glass panel if there is a system failure. The scan for standby instruments is going to be different for each aircraft. In my opinion it's more appropriate to train students in glass if that's what they will fly. Getting them into the habit of adapting the locations of the standby instruments in each aircraft will give them the skills they need for handling system failures.

If one is going to fly analog, then training in older six pack aircraft is appropriate.

bcrosier

Yes, the question was G1000 vs. analog, but very much in the context of which one to select for training. There was NO mention of which is better day in, day out for routine flying - it's all in the context of training/checking.

It's also safer not to do stalls, simulated engine outs, unusual attitudes, and a variety of other maneuvers we do during training. We accept the slightly higher risk because of the reward which is obtained in the form or greater proficiency. Learning to fly in an non-glass aircraft is no different in that regard.

I don't know the average, but I'd guess the average student arrives at their instrument check ride with less than ten hours actual IMC time. That's a fairly small slice of time percentage-wise, and I (and a lot of others) believe that you're getting a lot of personal development in exchange for that slight added risk.

Again, you're missing the point. It's NOT to develop a specific scan for a six pack, and hence it has nothing to do with developing a scan for backup instruments. Heck, I don't care if you do it in a 1956 172 with the original "shotgun" panel featuring a horizontal card DG - you are developing skills, in particular SA skills, which you can and will (or at least should) draw on the rest of your career.

Agreed, but you are laboring under the misconception that the issue here is merely developing a scan. The bigger issue is that of developing your overall SA. Spend the bulk of your time in a glass aircraft with the moving map disabled and you're coming much closer to talking apples to apples, but I doubt that many people are going to do that.

Okay, repeat after me: It's NOT just about developing a scan for a specific aircraft.

Let's say you are in your 747 on a missed approach headed toward a hold (it still happens in many parts of the world, not everyone flies in radar contact all the time) and the PNF gets ahead of the game and loads the next approach before you are established in the hold, guess what? All the moving map magic, your magenta line, the pretty holding pattern on the ND, your flight director guidance, and your CDI on the PFD are all GONE. You are now flying a very large 172N, with an upgraded primary flight instrument display (and much improved payload, range, and one engine inoperative capability).

That's the time when it's good to be able to pull that fancy pilot $#!+ out of your back pocket and be able to actually make the airplane go where you want it to, when and how you want it to, rather than trusting all the magic to make it happen. It's the skills you develop learning to fly instruments in an analog aircraft that make that second nature, rather than an emergency. Can those skill be developed in glass? Certainly, but I (and many others) believe it is much harder to do so.

Yes, the inherent reliability and redundancy of glass ultimately make the glass a safer system, but only if it's operated by a well trained pilot with a proper safety attitude. The SA enhancing capabilities of glass are almost beyond description, but again only if the pilot has the experience to really analyze and interpret what it's telling him, to question that information, and to arrive at a sound conclusion based on multiple data sources, not just where the airplane thinks it is.

Such as if one wanted to be a professional pilot, and might be called upon to fly such an aircraft.

Not everyone is immediately given the privilege of having the opportunity to dispatch to the great beyond 50 people who don't understand that just because they bought a ticket on ABC airlines didn't insure their flight would actually be operated by ABC airlines (Instead of XYZ airlines, which hired people with poor training and situational awareness).

No, some professional pilots still make their livings flying Aztecs, Navajos, Twin Cessnas, DC-8's, B-727's, and B-747 classics, or move through those jobs on their way to bigger and better things. But I digress...

In the long run, I still believe you have a higher probability of developing a more complete skill set learning to fly instruments in an analog airplane. The opportunity cost for that is a slightly increased level of risk (assuming you get some amount of actual instrument time) and a decidedly higher level of initial difficulty.

CrustyFE

Stalls, simulated engine outs, unusual attitudes are all required maneuvers. The risk is part of the training. The added risk of flying in an old analog aircraft isn't required so why do it?

Well for instrument training it is about a specific aircraft. Very few students train in multiple types of aircraft during training. They usually stick to one type of aircraft.

I agree with many of your points. I did my primary training in analog with no GPS. Not all instrument training in a glass airplane involves GPS and moving maps. Basic instrument skills and SA are still required training. If the training provided meets or exceeds PTS then there should be no difference in the level of SA one would learn during instrument training between analog and glass.

As far as being second nature goes, typical instrument training won't give any pilots enough proficiency for their skills to become second nature. That takes a lot more flight time than part 61 instrument minimums. Earning an instrument rating is just a license so to go learn for most pilots. Proficiency comes with practice. And it's undesirable to practice in an aircraft that is much different from the aircraft one will be flying. One should train in the type of aircraft they will fly. Fly like you train, train like you fly.


Well again, I agree with some of your points. The pilots flying "Aztecs, Navajos, Twin Cessnas, DC-8's, B-727's, and B-747 classics" should train for those aircraft. But even those aircraft can have updated avionics. I flew EC-130G/Q in the Navy as a flight engineer. Those aircraft has some pretty outdated systems in them in the time I flew them. Omega, Loran C, N1 and C12 compass systems, Litton 52 and then 72 INS. A lot of the older hercs have been updated with new system. Now the new J models are all glass and don't have a flight engineer anymore. I also flew B707's that started out as analog six packs and were eventually upgraded to full glass over the years. They kept the flight engineer though.

In my opinion the best thing to do is train for the type of aircraft one is going to fly in. If the training provided is good, then SA will be a big part of it and the ability to fly when the automated systems or the glass fails should be there.