Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Is there really a problem with glass cockpits?

This one has been done to death, but I wonder if there is another angle on it.

I think the biggest issue is not the presentation of the data (one can get used to most presentations, and e.g. the military HUD displays would initially be unintelligible to a GA pilot) but the increase in the aircraft systems knowledge which is now required to make use of the extra functionality which invariably accompanies “glass”.

To put it crudely, anybody can get a PPL if they work at it for long enough. Basically anybody who can pass the 7 PPL exams and who can drive a car with a manual box will eventually learn to fly. Might take 200hrs…

But it is absolutely not the case that anybody can learn the more advanced aircraft systems. Well, not within any normally available training system. The PPL training machine is capable of training a student for ever, until he/she drops out. Simple: repeat Exercise XX until satisfactory, then move to Exercise XX+1. Eventually you reach the skills test. If you fail, you drop back to Exercise YY… But there there isn’t a system for aircraft systems training.

I have met plenty of people who are flying a plane with a G1000 and whose systems knowledge limit is how to set the transponder code.

Accordingly, the potential for “WTF is it doing now” is that much greater. Especially if using the autopilot, which pilots of these planes tend to do all the time.

There is a predominance here of IT specialists who think aircraft systems are trivial and even interesting but I don’t think they are the ones that have issues with this

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

A very interesting point.
I am definitely not an IT geek and readily confess that when I first installed my glass cockpit I knew almost nothing about how to use it and that’s with a few hours on Cirrus a/c.
Now, after some 70 hours or so, I still don’t know how to use it fully but I am learning all the time.
I think the problem, as you say, is that unless you’ve come from a environment where all of this stuff is familiar and you will only have to learn the idiosyncrasies of the individual kit, then the learning curve is very steep indeed when you are on your own without a mentor of any kind.

Forever learning
EGTB

I think it really depends on which glass cockpit we are talking about.

While the G1000 or Perspective (Cirrus version of G1000) are very advanced and more powerful with feaures like “synth. vision” or even “hypoxia descent” they are also harder to learn than let’s say the Avidyne Entegra in my (2006) Cirrus. Almost the whole thing is self explanatory and can be learned in very short time – IF (and that’s the important part) you are proficient with the GNS430 that drives the glass cockpit.

Is anybody interested in the Entegra manual?

It is not only the glass cockpits. You have WTF moments with just an analogue AP coupled to a GPS Navigator.
I like to get to bottom of the problems and do my debugging of the systems.
You need system knowledge for your aircraft even on steam gauges. I have met people who use one mode of AP, because that is all they know about. They have not read and POH of the AP.

United Kingdom

To be honest I think it is generational. Some people who have grown up with steam gauges struggle to cope with glass. Glass may require some more knowledge but it just isn’t that hard – but it is different. People who have grown up with electronic devices and software like my son find it straightforward.

The same people who struggle with glass may well have had no systems knowledge of their analog systems either. It is the integrated nature of modern glass that creates challenges ie xpndr, radios, bugs etc are all set in the one system.

EGTK Oxford

To be honest I think it is generational

Partly, but I am 40 years old and I grew up from a very early age having the most modern of computers in our household. OK, my friends I weren’t supposed to be using it to play Leisure Suit Larry, but that’s another matter ;-)

In my career, I am an IT professional of various kinds. But as a PPL I’d see a challenge to move completely to full glass. I have a GNS430, and I can use it well enough for all the things I want to do. Even though I am IMCr rated, I wouldn’t be confident to use it totally for any kind of instrument approach and guidance. I’ve trained to do that very briefly, but not consistently or holistically taking in the other features that will potentially help or even un-help me in the air.

As a vanilla PPL, there is probably something like 10% of the full glass system that is of legitimate use (especially as it is might be only place that set NAV/COM/QNH etc). It’s when they try, or rely upon the other 90%, of which I suspect most of it relates only to a PPL+IR or CPL pilot. I don’t think it matters if you are 16, or 66 or 96, you need the holistic training of THAT system + verification (I’m not suggesting a class rating, but maybe logbook signoff on a non-complex SEP) + currency + right skills (IR). I’m not saying a vanilla PPL of any age cant fly a simple SEP with it, but they should just be very careful a) not to use it beyond their means b) forget steam gauges and kill yourself because you cant do a 180 out of a cloud on a basic, limited or even partial panel.

Of course, it takes familiarity and flying Avidyne Entegra is completely different from say G1000. I thought Peter’s point was that not everyone can learn these systems. I disagree. But it does take effort naturally.

EGTK Oxford

Yes, there is really a problem. The problem is G1000 coupled to pilots who do not fly G1000 frequently – especially IFR.

My not-for-certificate instruction during the last couple of years has been 20% Avidyne (classic), 30% G1000 and 50% old instrumentation. G1000 pilots are the only ones actually having trouble managing VHF COM and intercom. None of them have any idea how do find “nearest airport” (ok, not many of the Avidyne pilots either, using the GNS430). Setting ADF and DME on G1000 is a joke. The interface between G1000 and the KAP140 autopilot is very weak. (GFC700 autopilot, otoh, is good!) The altitude tape presentation used on all PFD’s is inferior to any round scale “clock” altimeter. Richard Collins of “Flying” fame once suggested that after 8 weeks no pilots should consider himself current on G1000. I tend to agree, and I think Avidyne pilots fare better. Avidyne is more intuitive, and has less integration (early versions).

But this may be just transitional. G1000 is getting replaced by more intuitive glass cockpits. Right now, however, I guess most factory new small GA airplanes are sold with G1000 than other cockpits, and they will continue to confuse low-time pilots for many years to come. I still like flying G1000, though …

Last Edited by huv at 15 Oct 13:06
huv
EKRK, Denmark

I’m sure quite a lot of this is because the user interface design is somewhat lacking in certain avionics, and I’ve used plenty of avionics that don’t seem to follow the principle of “least surprise” and do stuff that’s just weird unless you’ve sat through and at least trained yourself on something that should really just work.

If Tektronix can make an oscilloscope I can turn on and use without ever opening the manual, then surely the avionics manufacturers can do so for glass cockpits, especially given they now have a decent amount of screen real estate.

Andreas IOM

The altitude tape presentation used on all PFD’s is inferior to any round scale “clock” altimeter.

I disagree, but I have as much time on aircraft with that presentation as I have with an old 2 finger altimeter.

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)
29 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top