Too much data??
Thread Starter
Too much data??
Folks,
NTSB have a study out with some startling results ---- or are they??
SB-10-07
Tootle pip!!
NTSB have a study out with some startling results ---- or are they??
"Glass Cockpit" light GA aircraft have an accident rate of more than double "steam age" round dial aeroplanes.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Amongst the weeds and the dust
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well any numpty thinks they're 747 P1 material with all those gizmos telling them everything don't they?
My hunch tells me that steam gauges are that archaic that people expect things to fail, and have that sense of fleeting safety in the back of their minds when they go flying.
Glass gives you the impression that everything is all working swimmingly and that you can relax, because the magic panel doesn't say anything's wrong.
I think a healthy level of scepticism of systems and being cynical of safety will lead to a longer life in aviation.
Much like the mindset chopper pilots have
My hunch tells me that steam gauges are that archaic that people expect things to fail, and have that sense of fleeting safety in the back of their minds when they go flying.
Glass gives you the impression that everything is all working swimmingly and that you can relax, because the magic panel doesn't say anything's wrong.
I think a healthy level of scepticism of systems and being cynical of safety will lead to a longer life in aviation.
Much like the mindset chopper pilots have
Hat, Coat
Moderator
The Safety Board determined that because glass cockpits are both complex and vary from aircraft to aircraft in function, design and failure modes, pilots are not always provided with all of the information they need – both by aircraft manufacturers and the Federal Aviation Administration – to adequately understand the unique operational and functional details of the primary flight instruments in their airplanes.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if over confidence in modern navigation technology has not resulted is private pilots pushing beyond their maximum flying capability? Certainly it is now far easier for limited experience VFR pilots to operate in IMC with modern GPS capability, with inevitable results.
I've also seen traffic pass quite close without the TCAD saying boo.Now I'm not saying that we should ignore the benefits to be gained from advances in avionics, however what seems to be lacking is instruction and guidance in how they should be used in the overall framework of a safe and efficient operation.
In my opinion the complete (but unfounded) faith in some modern avionics has been the downfall of some pilots. VFR flight into IMC and VCAs are a couple of examples that spring to mind.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6-pack round dial or 'glass cockpit'.
Nothing beats good training.
Distinct design features require different ratings or endorsements;
Tail-Wheel, CSU, Multi. etc.
Maybe 'glass-cockpits' need a specific endorsement.
I believe a properly trained Pilot in a 'glass cockpit' has better situational awareness in an IFR environment.
Throw Bloggs in a C182 G1000/Cirrus Avidyne with an Instructor that knows little more than Bloggs then you have a safety issue.
Like it or not - 'Glass Cockpits' are the future. (almost) Every manufacturer offers some kind of glass panel as standard.
The challenge is to have Instructors properly teach the technology.
Nothing beats good training.
Distinct design features require different ratings or endorsements;
Tail-Wheel, CSU, Multi. etc.
Maybe 'glass-cockpits' need a specific endorsement.
I believe a properly trained Pilot in a 'glass cockpit' has better situational awareness in an IFR environment.
Throw Bloggs in a C182 G1000/Cirrus Avidyne with an Instructor that knows little more than Bloggs then you have a safety issue.
Like it or not - 'Glass Cockpits' are the future. (almost) Every manufacturer offers some kind of glass panel as standard.
The challenge is to have Instructors properly teach the technology.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glass cockpit are obviously important in the industry, but I just don't think the manufacturers put enough time into studying the human interaction with the device. They seem to simply rely on a "more is good" type of philosophy. Mind you, this is only my opinion.
I watched an Avweb video not long ago about a manufacturer that was touting their "new design" PFD. What it had was a compass rose centred on the AH. They claimed it was easier to interpret, etc etc etc, all that nice sales person stuff. Now I've never tried out the unit, so I can only imagine what it's like. BUT, turning left, the compass rose is rotating right (so to speak). Bad "ergonomics" if you ask me. The other thing to consider about keeping information somewhat separated is that during a scan, by looking at a different instrument, your brain interprets the information on it's own. Spend a second looking at the ASI, the AH, the compass rose, back to the AH. You get the picture. I fear that by including everything in one area (AH, compass rose, speed error tapes) the user will stop interpreting and just end up looking through all the information.
*rant over*
I watched an Avweb video not long ago about a manufacturer that was touting their "new design" PFD. What it had was a compass rose centred on the AH. They claimed it was easier to interpret, etc etc etc, all that nice sales person stuff. Now I've never tried out the unit, so I can only imagine what it's like. BUT, turning left, the compass rose is rotating right (so to speak). Bad "ergonomics" if you ask me. The other thing to consider about keeping information somewhat separated is that during a scan, by looking at a different instrument, your brain interprets the information on it's own. Spend a second looking at the ASI, the AH, the compass rose, back to the AH. You get the picture. I fear that by including everything in one area (AH, compass rose, speed error tapes) the user will stop interpreting and just end up looking through all the information.
*rant over*
Thread Starter
The challenge is to have Instructors properly teach the technology.
That requires the rather heroic (and, sadly, unrealistic) assumption that the instructor has got a clue, him/her/itself.
A major problem with much of the GA "glass" is that manufacturers are designing/selling the stuff much like modern mobile phones --- the more "functions" stuffed in the box, the more the marketing hype, and presumably, the more the sales. And like a mobile phone, most users will only ever use a small selection of available "apps".
This is in complete contrast to ATA specification for FMCS systems, the specifications having a commonality missing in GA gear, starting with a simplicity of operation.
The opportunity for even a reasonably competent pilot to fumble operation of much GA gear is too great, starting with (in my opinion) triple concentric knobs for multiple function selection, then type of frequency, then frequency, or another alpha numeric value.
An FMCS CDU with a keypad and distinct function buttons is far less error prone.
And this is just for starters. Mode confusion, information overload etc., etc.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too much glass? Never, some would say-this is my other gig:
In total there is something like 16 screens, most have multiple inputs, some up to 12, in fact in order to save real estate we have installed splitters to feed some screens 12 channels simultaneously. The amount of information blasted at you is enough to send you schitzo (and sometimes some do go schitzo).
You 'fly' under the direction of ATC 100% of the time while dodging bugsmashers, flies, thunderstorms and a myriad of things that could go wrong and if they do chances are millions of people know about it, INSTANTLY. Parts of your aircraft ARE held together by gaffer tape, dodgy connectors, submerged in water and flapping about in wind. The best your RF gear usually gets is a Manfrotto clamp and a bit of steel tubing...
Oh, the red lights-that's your COMMS panel. On average 16 channels you are listening to... at once. Kind of like throwing all the traffic from 30 country aerodromes and ALAs into YSSY at once at 1800 local time...
Oh and your flight plan... you have a fairly definite TO time, for sure. Usually, but not always you get a map of where you are going. In the best of cases the map will be 50% correct. You can guarantee you will need to delete 30% of the waypoints because they are completely incorrect. You just don't quite know which ones, often until you get to them...
No autopilot, that's you, the pilot, you can switch your AUTO mode on only after 30 years of experience. Those 30 years have to represent 50 years of any other working persons hours, ie a minimum 12 hour days at least 6 days a week. At least 50% night VFR and IFR.
You control at least 6 computers simultaneously, some run Windows (brrrrr) some Linux, some Mac OSX, some DOS, Some a weird concoction of geek ego on steroids with some funky hooch thrown in.
The physical user interface has been the same for 50 years.. thank god. But instead of 1 stick, two pedals, a keypad or dual concentric knobs, a few switches and flip flop buttons, you have at least TWO to FOUR THOUSAND controls under you fingertips instantly and even more if you are really clever.
You are guaranteed to: land safely with your sanity intact, crash and burn spectacularly or arrive at your destination with perhaps 50% of your bodyweight on the floor in cold sweat.
Multi Crew Environment? Bet ya. You are in command of a team of 8, each of which is crucial to your arrival (and survival), all the while you are only the bottom layer of the command structure. The actual crew required to come back to Earth required is about 30 and believe me, when one f$#%#s up, EVERYBODY KNOWS.
Give me steam gauges. Anytime. Problem with glass as has been mentioned before-TOO MUCH INFORMATION DISPLAYED VERY BADLY.
RFG- I disagree that you have better situational awareness with glass-I think there needs to be a differentiation here and an analysis-how much information is actually necessary to pilot an aircraft safely through any situation. There is a definite tendency to overload the glass with crap. When you fly your RV mozzie smasher do you need to have the level of information as Super Hornet driver? Horses for courses here I think.
sc
In total there is something like 16 screens, most have multiple inputs, some up to 12, in fact in order to save real estate we have installed splitters to feed some screens 12 channels simultaneously. The amount of information blasted at you is enough to send you schitzo (and sometimes some do go schitzo).
You 'fly' under the direction of ATC 100% of the time while dodging bugsmashers, flies, thunderstorms and a myriad of things that could go wrong and if they do chances are millions of people know about it, INSTANTLY. Parts of your aircraft ARE held together by gaffer tape, dodgy connectors, submerged in water and flapping about in wind. The best your RF gear usually gets is a Manfrotto clamp and a bit of steel tubing...
Oh, the red lights-that's your COMMS panel. On average 16 channels you are listening to... at once. Kind of like throwing all the traffic from 30 country aerodromes and ALAs into YSSY at once at 1800 local time...
Oh and your flight plan... you have a fairly definite TO time, for sure. Usually, but not always you get a map of where you are going. In the best of cases the map will be 50% correct. You can guarantee you will need to delete 30% of the waypoints because they are completely incorrect. You just don't quite know which ones, often until you get to them...
No autopilot, that's you, the pilot, you can switch your AUTO mode on only after 30 years of experience. Those 30 years have to represent 50 years of any other working persons hours, ie a minimum 12 hour days at least 6 days a week. At least 50% night VFR and IFR.
You control at least 6 computers simultaneously, some run Windows (brrrrr) some Linux, some Mac OSX, some DOS, Some a weird concoction of geek ego on steroids with some funky hooch thrown in.
The physical user interface has been the same for 50 years.. thank god. But instead of 1 stick, two pedals, a keypad or dual concentric knobs, a few switches and flip flop buttons, you have at least TWO to FOUR THOUSAND controls under you fingertips instantly and even more if you are really clever.
You are guaranteed to: land safely with your sanity intact, crash and burn spectacularly or arrive at your destination with perhaps 50% of your bodyweight on the floor in cold sweat.
Multi Crew Environment? Bet ya. You are in command of a team of 8, each of which is crucial to your arrival (and survival), all the while you are only the bottom layer of the command structure. The actual crew required to come back to Earth required is about 30 and believe me, when one f$#%#s up, EVERYBODY KNOWS.
Give me steam gauges. Anytime. Problem with glass as has been mentioned before-TOO MUCH INFORMATION DISPLAYED VERY BADLY.
RFG- I disagree that you have better situational awareness with glass-I think there needs to be a differentiation here and an analysis-how much information is actually necessary to pilot an aircraft safely through any situation. There is a definite tendency to overload the glass with crap. When you fly your RV mozzie smasher do you need to have the level of information as Super Hornet driver? Horses for courses here I think.
sc
