Glass Cockpits Provide No Safety Benefit, Study Says

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!

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.

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.

RSB, CFII

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.

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.