Old habits die hard. The additional information on a flat panel display is most welcome especially a moving map. From my experience however, I found I'd rather have the old steam gauge for aircraft attitude and performance. Even when my company got the first EFIS 737s, the instructor cadre decided to present airspeed, not as a tape but a round dial airspeed indicator on the CRT tube. They must have intuited most of us would take some getting used to an airspeed tape. I was a prime example.
Next came the 757 which had both the airspeed tape and a large round dial airspeed indicator. My eyes would most frequently revert to the round dial. The angular difference between the speed bug and needle jumps out with no ambiguity. One knot slow, I'd see it. As hard as I tried to follow, just the speed tape, I found I had to think about what I was seeing more, which way to move the throttles. Often, it was the wrong way until I got the hang of it.
This came when I was forced to fly just a tape in the 777. That's all it had. Hand-flying this amazing airplane with auto-throttles OFF on an approach was challenging at first. I had to practice moving the throttles this way when the tape moved that way. I had to focus too closely on it. Eventually I got precise with it but was glad we mostly flew with auto-throttles ON, all the time.
Any of us old heads could have predicted those results; flying is not a new technology game as lots of pilots treat it. Just wait till you do a survey on the success or lack ther of as a result of FITS, another stupid way of teaching piloting skills. Just read AF 447 accident report & you can see where we are headed. Read landing on the Hudson & you will see what true airmanship & skill is all about. You do not need all that glass provides ( & I've instructed in many), glass overwhelms the average pilot & is a huge distraction.
Regarding Glass Panels Vs Non.
This should be expected. For VFR Pilots - Attention should be outside the airplane and flying the airplane. I fly a 172SP Glass panel regularly as the older non G1000. The G1000 I have to remind myself to keep my head outside as you can keep awful busy playing with the controls. With the analog aircraft - you have less of that "fun" stuff going on. With both you have to be able to interpret what is going on. For IFR - I started most of my training on the older type 172's with the six pack. I feel comfortable pretty much in both - but you have to know and trust both as well as be proficient in each. At least with the six pack I would have not suffered dual panel G1000 failure at night. Either way - you have to fly the airplane. Either way - I am having the time of my life as I am up in the air and flying. Be well.. Keep flying!
“demonstrably higher rates of accidents during takeoffs, landings and go-arounds,”
It's pretty obvious. This when you really have to fly the aircraft and not be messing around with a bunch of whiz-bang gizmos and acting like this is some kind of video game.
It's a symptom of our g0-fast, get-the-latest-gadget culture. People want to learn fast in the coolest technology and if they can afford a TAA, they'll go get one before learning to fly a simpler plane.
It's not that us old dogs are right and TAAs are bad. It's like handing keys to a computerized Ferrari to a kid who just got his license.
It's tough to go from zero flight time, learn all if the fundamentals of airmanship, all the while tackling an avionics suite that many of us didn't see until we had hundreds of flight hours. When we did encounter advanced avionics it was usually in a professional flight training program and there were serious procedures that went along with the learning.
Because we already had airmanship skills, we could then focus on the new task of learning the equipment.
Right now we're simply cramming too much too soon...and the sad outcome is obvious.
If you can afford to fly a TAA then you can afford to get some time in a basic aircraft.
Learn to control the plane by outside reference and even by the sounds it's making.
Slow down and enjoy the fact that you're flying a plane not a screen!
Initial training should be focused on actual flight instead of which page the taxi diagrams are on.
I believe that TAAs would be (are) safer than older equipment but only in the hands of capable pilots.
Become an aviator first and an IT professional later.
Then the stats will improve.
I can't imagine how anyone would be surprised at the findings of the study. I don't know of anyone who believed that glass panels would improve basic flying skills. The technology has made us better flight managers for its big picture presentation of traffic, terrain, controlled airspace and weather. I'm sure that initial instrument training is more effective due to an overall improvement in situational awareness. If we had an increase in accidents due to controlled flight into terrain, continued VFR flight into IMC, or the kinds of hapless, careless and reckless operations we read about here, THEN I'd be worried.
Reference higher accident rates - Is there a possibility TAA pilots fixate in the cockpit more often than "steam gauge" pilots. Perhaps it takes a fraction of time more to locate and interpret the information? (e.g.; finding your VSI on the tape, or interpret the information, within a relatively dense screen vs a pure, dedicated gauge). Just a guess based on my observations - no scientific proof. I love technology just as much as the next guy, just can't afford all that glass cockpit stuff at this point in my career.
I am still seriously hoping someone calling April Fools on this story?
To the people unloading wisdoms such as “my steam gauge cockpit is so much easier and is all I need” let’s first clarify it’s only so much easier because you simply cannot be bothered to calculate all the data that the new cockpits put right at your fingertips.
Trust me, you are feeling quite relaxed on your cross country flight in your old cockpit since you are doing only about half the work, go see an instructor about that.
And, to be fair, let’s first go ahead and subtract all the bent metal and stupid pet tricks from people launching into the worst weather conditions because some marketing brochure promised a good outcome “should the need arise to pull the chute”.
Once corrected for this very sad and unfortunate fact I think the record for advanced technology aircraft will stand quite proudly, thank you very much.
And in regards to the “landing on the Hudson” the successful outcome of this event depended very much on an advanced cockpit and the capabilities and protections it provides. It was not a pure “stick and rudder” landing, the Airbus aircraft designers deserve a lot of credit for their help in saving all those souls. (some heroes just don't like to share...)
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate...
If you're navigating when you should be aviating you're going to have a problem... When you plane is close to things that can break it, the best place to be looking is outside of the airplane (regardless of what's in your panel) ...
While my panel is now dated and doesn't have as much glass as the new ones its got more glass than some. Technology can be a wonderful thing (and make your flight a whole lot safer) when you are in the clouds and have nothing immovable (like ground) to look at...
My two cents.
I have been routinely looking at the FAA's accident database for a few years and have noticied that the newer aircraft (I generally look at Cirrus) have higher accidents per number of aircraft flying than other types (PA-28's for example). Not only ate the rates higher, but the rate of fatal accidents is higher. I'm familiar with Aspen panels, G1000's as well as the analog gauges that I have had in my two aircraft, and really prefer the analogs because of the ability to rapidly interpret them at a glance. The PFD's can be challenging when the information presented is changing rapidly, and this slows the pilot's reaction time, especially in critical flight phases.
In addition, the degree of automation breeds pilot reliance and erodes basic airmanship skills. There was another study not long ago that demonstarted this phenomena in commercial operations. Pilot proficiency, a sound aircraft, and good aeronautical decision making will always win out over a mediocre pilot flying the newest plane with the latest gadgetry.
What if a study determined that for aviation safety, all (PFD) glass panel displays must be re-programed to look like the traditional 6 pack of steam gauges?
Studies can sometimes be little more than a load of data organized neatly on paper. Results of can be subject to differing interpretations, often favoring the outcome that the person paying for a study wants to see. So just because ASI paid for this TAA study doesn't make it totally credible or conclusive.
Those commissioned to do studies can also conclude that "further study is needed". That appears to have happened here. This study has opened the question of "as to why landing or takeoff accidents would be greater with TAAs"
So, will ASI pay for another study to answer that question?
Let's not be so gullible as to take away very much from studies like these.
Air France F447 is one illustration that glass cockpits (and associated software/hardware) still do not take place of good piloting and training. Students should train on the good old instrument aircraft and graduate to glass cockpits after the hard yards are done. Too much reliance on fancy gear and not enough flying skill. I have studied accidents for two years and am studying aviation management and accident investigation. Although a global accreditation being from NZ having the highest private pilot license per population there is unfortunately plenty of small aircraft incidents and accidents to study and fortunately nothing big since 1979. So as us oldies have stated nothing new, same S*&! different day.
Has anyone done a demographic study of TAA crashes? I think if you're rich enough to own a TAA you probably don't have that much time to fly. Time is money, and staying proficient in TAA requires more time than in steam systems. Additionally, TAAs cost significantly more than steam, another reason people are less proficient. TAA give a great picture of where the airplane IS, but a poor one of where it's GOING (energy-wise).
Pilot error is pilot error!......no amount of instrumentation is going to help if the pilot ignores it.......
Glass is another informationial (& very comprehensive) tool for the pilots use.........For light single and twin engine aircraft with no radar, the right hand info screen has a ground station weather presentation..........A big plus in my estimation.......