Anyone interested in weighing-in on this? http://airfactsjournal.com/2015/06/fals ... nt-1122032

Most PPL's have flown both gauges and glass by this time. If the issue is which one offers better safety or quality of information to the pilot, I have never had a preference. I'm not drawn more to either camp for the VFR and occasional IFR I do. Basic airmanship deficits kill about the same number of pilots every year per flight hour as it ever did, and for the same reasons. Instrument styles are fashion and can't seem to be demonstrated to have an impact on safety in their present form. And no wonder- they do the same thing.

Certificated glass offers little more than a replacement for gauges. Their functionality is limited to this by regulatory restrictions and by tradition. In my opinion, they do nothing different for 90% of pilots 95% of the time. If you have a 3-axis AP, it makes life a lot easier with the modern systems to drive the airplane for you. But few airplanes are equipped this way, and fewer yet get any serious use at all. That is why the stats appear to be so similar. If you do the same thing over and over, you are likely to get the same results.

Certificated glass costs a lot more than replacement gauges. It can't be put into a lot of planes without large reams of paperwork. The end result is a lot of money spent with zero return on the investment. It is pretty to have 32-bit color on a 1000-NIT MFD, but the measurable outcomes for that expense won't be any better.

Non-certificated glass is different and innovative. It offers a weight savings, functionality, and price advantages over gauges.

As long as aviation is hamstrung to preserve the safety record of the past with regulation and fear of innovation, it can only expect the same safety record in the future.

Looking at GA safety issues, here are a few random ideas,for better or for worse:

1. Better weather awareness. We still have 1930's technology transmitting 21st century weather observation data. The average newer pilot will glean more real actionable information from an average local TV news weather broadcast that they will from most of the encoded text-based screeds they are provided. Maintaining these awful systems is costlier than simply telling the story straight up. It should not be a safety issue by design if a newer pilot who hasn't perfected their Sanskrit can't get 100% from an encoded forecast or METAR, and be able to put together a cohesive, accurate weather map in their head of what is happening. Technology can cut right through this, and damned well. A lack of skills in putting together good weather awareness from official sources compared to an average untrained person using the evening news can accomplish does not need to create a safety hazard.

2. Instead of $30k more for glass that looks a whole lot prettier than it helps, why not have more training in instrument flying? Pilots trained in IFR flying stay alive a lot longer. If CFIT has a large component of loss of control in IMC (it does), then why not expect pilots to be less helpless? An entry into IMC conditions should not be a death sentence for a pilot. Not with the kind of technology available in experimental glass, and not with the skills available with training for IMC.

3. Better tools for performance and reality checking. If DA kills a lot of pilots (it does), why not provide information about actual performance in actual conditions? Pilots guessing and polemics about a lack of pilot skills for DA has not seemed to work very well over several decades. Things like rate of climb, takeoff distances, landing distances, ceilings, and climb gradients are not rocket science, and people are not doing the required 5th grade math to figure it all out. Why not present it to the pilot? Slide rules. Glass. Instruments. We don't expect a pilot to stay upright in a cloud without a gyro. Why do we expect them to evaluate a dynamic performance envelope properly every time by the TLAR (that looks about right) method? It hasn't worked for many decades, why will it magically work now or into the future? A lack of precise personal skills in determining DA performance does not need to become a safety hazard.

4. Fuel. Everyone grouses about how unfortunate pilots can't keep track of fuel, and think of them as lazy or dumb. It isn't that hard to use totalizers and better fuel level sensors to give better information. A pilot does not need to become a safety hazard by losing fuel awareness.

There are more, but these address some points that have dominated real accident statistics decade after decade. My view is that $30k for certificated glass is going to accomplish jack compared to better training for the things that remain the biggest killers decade after decade, better information availability and use, and better skills. It is like everyone sees the data, and all that happens is finger wagging and large checks being written with little real change.

Seeing glass as a benefit or a detriment with regards to GA safety is like talking about exotic hors d'oeuvres preferences at a refugee camp.

Well, I dropped a serious wad to have an IFR gps installed in my plane couple months back. Never felt so ripped off in my life, is what it is...These days a pilot is fairly limited flying IFR without being able to shoot gps approaches etc. all my regular haunts are pretty well gps only.

Times are a changing, whether we want them to or not. In the backcountry VFR flying we all enjoy, an IFR gps n automopilot don't really do much, other than possibly give more options for the ol misjudged scud run [emoji33]

As far as autopilots, they're for pussies (i.e. I can't afford one [emoji12])

Skalywag wrote: I dropped a serious wad to have an IFR gps installed in my plane couple months back. Never felt so ripped off in my life, is what it is...These days a pilot is fairly limited flying IFR without being able to shoot gps approaches etc. all my regular haunts are pretty well gps only. ....

I'm not sure what you mean....does the new IFR GPS not do what you expected / want it to do? Is it an enroute-approved only unit? I thought a VOR with GS would be required for most IFR flying to cover all the bases, but I've been told by IFR pilots (I'm not one) that a modern IFR GPS unit can create it's own glideslope. Also most if not all new approaches are R-NAV (GPS), and don't use ground-based localizer / glideslope equipment.

hotrod180 wrote:

Skalywag wrote: I dropped a serious wad to have an IFR gps installed in my plane couple months back. Never felt so ripped off in my life, is what it is...These days a pilot is fairly limited flying IFR without being able to shoot gps approaches etc. all my regular haunts are pretty well gps only. ....

I'm not sure what you mean....does the new IFR GPS not do what you expected / want it to do? Is it an enroute-approved only unit? I thought a VOR with GS would be required for most IFR flying to cover all the bases, but I've been told by IFR pilots (I'm not one) that a modern IFR GPS unit can create it's own glideslope. Also most if not all new approaches are R-NAV (GPS), and don't use ground-based localizer / glideslope equipment.

That is true, but it has to be a WAAS GPS for it to be IFR legal to be used as the sole means of navigation. This would be the case with the Garmin 430s/530s with WAAS updates as well as their new GTN 650/750 series. Avidyne and Bendix King are the other players. WAAS GPS is truly an incredible system that will most likely make all other forms obsolete in the not too distant future.

With WAAS, you get LPV (Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance). As the name suggests, it gives you the performance of a localizer and glideslope, but is still considered to be a non-precision approach. It gets rid of the need to do RAIM predictions for GPS coverage and the need for VOR/DME systems as a backup. The down side is that if VOR/DME systems are made obsolete, the only method for IFR navigate will be by a WAAS GPS which means $$$$$$$.

Skalywag wrote:Well, I dropped a serious wad to have an IFR gps installed in my plane couple months back. Never felt so ripped off in my life, is what it is...These days a pilot is fairly limited flying IFR without being able to shoot gps approaches etc. all my regular haunts are pretty well gps only.

Times are a changing, whether we want them to or not. In the backcountry VFR flying we all enjoy, an IFR gps n automopilot don't really do much, other than possibly give more options for the ol misjudged scud run [emoji33]

As far as autopilots, they're for pussies (i.e. I can't afford one [emoji12])

Me as well. Just replaced an Apollo GX55 and two MX170C Nav/Coms with a GTN 650. And for the same reason as Luke, to give me IFR GPS Approach capability. I'm not IFR rated yet, but will be to expand my ability to get in and out.

If I wanted just a certificated VFR bird it'd have an ASI, Altimeter and Compass, and a panel mounted iPad w/ Foreflight (a far superior combination then anything Garmin or Aspen build imo - and immensely cheaper).

For just a VFR Experimental, a Dynon Skyview and a panel mounted iPad w/ Foreflight or Garmin Pilot.

I do have to admit that the radio in the GTN 650 is far clearer and has greater reception distance then the MX170C's.

Steam gauges or Glass? VFR I don't care as the only ones I look at are engine and fuel related. For IFR I have to admit that in IMC I'd much prefer flying with Synthetic Vision then with just an attitude indicator.

Oh, and I like my autopilot Skaly.

Hotrod, I have the GTN 650, the unit itself is an excellent IFR GPS that does everything mentioned above and then some.

As far as referring to feeling ripped off, that was about the insane price tag for these suckers!!! GTN 650 and Garmin CDI new from dealer with 2 year warranty= $10,600 + install ($4000) [emoji28]

Skalywag wrote:....As far as referring to feeling ripped off, that was about the insane price tag for these suckers!!! GTN 650 and Garmin CDI new from dealer with 2 year warranty= $10,600 + install ($4000) [emoji28]

Ouch!

Three years ago, I paid $15 K for my 430W and a PS Engineering 6000B audio panel, including a new encoder, biennial transponder and pitot-static check, with a plug-in for audio extras (mostly my XM radio). I figured if I was going to continue to fly in the system as it's evolving, I needed to update from a pair of navcoms and an ADF, and my audio panel was crapping out. It wasn't a hard decision, other than the money part, as otherwise I'd be limiting myself in the system. Of course, none of that stuff benefits for back country flying particularly, although having a good GPS actually does help a little as far as getting there.

Cary