I wholeheartedly agree that transitioning from steam to glass is not as easy as it looks. It's imperative to thoroughly get to know glass software on the ground for several training hours, not in the air. I always wondered why the glass avionics don't offer - in addition to the tape layout - a configurable steam gauge layout so that every pilot can more or less choose the flight instrument presentation of their choice / needed for a particular flight and intended use of navaids/approach. This could still have all the extra goodies of glass cockpits (additional bugs, alerts, trend vectors, no vac pump, etc etc.) - it's software, so it's all possible (and in fact that's what all simulators provide).
I've never flown with glass - but they look absolutely dreadful. Totally compromised by the cost of large LCD displays it seems to me - far less area dedicated to the instruments so things are displayed digitally instead of analogue - nobody can read changing numbers as fast as they can register a needle position. And the usual Japanese inspired set of menu push buttons for control, rather than the right switch for the job - again cost compromises to keep the manufacturing cost low. And all programmed differently. It looks to me as if displays of this sort would require far more time to adapt to than traditional displays. How long does it take the average person to work out how to navigate their smartphone, and then how good does that make them at navigating somebody else's phone?
Funny thing is, I was the exact opposite. I started flying simulators as a kid and was used to tape and digital readouts. Then I did my instrument work on steam gauges and had to get used to a 'scan' to keep the plane flying. My first IFR job was on a glass aircraft and seriously it couldn't be easier. Moving tapes catch your eye, the attitude indicator/flight director is huge... no need for a scan at all.
I started in simulators as well, and was generally overly reliant on instrument flying given when I started with real aircraft I was of course learning VFR... The aircraft I've flown the most has a very small MFD combined with a lot of steam gauges, so it technically has both. Neither type of instrument was particularly unfamiliar to me, but since both were present on those occasions when I had to reference instruments I could use either... Personally I have a hard time with gauges. They're great for relative measurements but I spend far too much time doing mental conversions and calculations to work out my actual situation. Glass cockpit readouts are not that great either though. Still... It's whatever you're used to I guess...
I trained for my private in steam gauges, but I mainly used the G1000 for my instrument training, along with a little steam gauge experience. In my opinion the G1000 was honestly a lot easier. There was a lot less you really had to think about, you didn’t have to move your eyes around as much so it was a lot easier to gather trends. I found myself catching my altitude a lot more in the G1000 than in a steam gauge airplane despite the G1000 not having needles. The real kicker for me though was the steam gauges not having HSIs, which helps remove a lot of the workload for stuff like VOR approaches. Synthetic vision is also amazing too, it can make an ILS or LPV approach into a pseudo visual approach where you just point the “eagle” (the green circle on some G1000 systems which predicts where you will be based on the conditions at the time) at the runway. The autopilot was also a really nice feature for xcs, but that’s with any autopilot. Also did a lot of sim flying prior to my instrument, so I can’t really say whether training should be required because I already knew mostly what to look for, but if you did your instrument training in steam gauges and want to move to glass I still definitely would recommend training. There are so many little things on there that you wouldn’t really know unless you actually had someone tell you. From stuff like switching frequencies or making flight plans, to what to do if the PFD fails, or what an AHRS or ADC is, that you would definitely need to know that only an instructor or experienced G1000 pilot(who isn’t just a safety pilot) could really tell you.
The video is correct regarding transition from analog to digital instrumentation. For me, one example was the appearance of digital quartz wristwatches in the early 80's. All my life I could look at my mechanical wristwatch and see it was 20 minutes past Seven o"clock. From that point I had a mental image of the watch hands, and a mental awareness of about how much time had passed since I last checked. Enter the age of digital watches ---- I would see the numbers 720 and actually had to memorize numbers to know what time it was. My brain wasn't trained in numbers for timekeeping, and I was constantly wondering what time it was, re-checking my watch every five minutes and still not knowing the time. Finally, I resorted to turning the numbers into a mental image of a clock face, and that solved the problem, although I had to make watching the time a two-step process. Analog v. digital are two different worlds in the area of human cognition and application.
Except this isn’t analog vs digital. It’s mechanical vs electronic. Glass displays are definitely analog. Even “digital” readouts are on drum rollers so you can see fine values and trends. And of course the digital watch was never an issue for me since I had to work on a 24 hour Zulu clock which meant analog watches were next to useless.
Also... that “mental image” of the hands killed a whole pile of pilots flying off a three hand altimeter (the kind that you see on light aircraft) because they were too easy to misread by _TEN THOUSAND FEET!!!_ The very first addition to high performance jets was a altimeter with a drum roller readout of altitude and only a sweeping 20 foot hand.
I don't get why guys keep doing this. Thats why there are checkouts. Just go up with a CFI(who is checked out in that aircraft) and do check flight...which should include practicing IFR approaches and emergency procedures
In Switzerland EFIS (Electronic Flight Information System) is a required Difference Training. You can't just hop in a plane with a glass cockpit without logging some hours with a CFI first. And different brands of EFIS require a familiarization (reading the manual is enough). Of course no one is going to check if you have actually done this ... until it's probably too late.
Urs Odermatt Why not. Question is where the 10yr old gets the money to buy a car. And even if, he might be in on some questioning from the car seller. But, what has this anything to do with EFIS and airplanes?
it's like people panic, and start treating the plane like it's a car, where you can get away with just making a sharp turn. People even do this riding horses - they forget that the animal has two sets of legs, and just ride the head.
To him the airspeed indicator probably seemed upside down. On the conventional round airspeed indicator zero is at the top, but on the tape display, zero is at the bottom. This provides an inverse relationship to the stick- airspeed reaction. In his Cessna he can drive the airspeed needle by pushing or pulling the stick in the direction he wants the needle to go. On the PFD, it’s the opposite. Altitude is similar, though not as significant, however, you can’t scan the tape without reading the numbers as easily as you can scan a conventional altimeter needle. That full-width attitude display in the background is supposed to help pilots like this stay orientated. However, it can’t make up for a lack of training and experience entirely.
The Dynon Skyview in our Vixxen A32 has the option of going '6 pack' if required. It also has auto pilot which can save your life in similar situation..it is easy enough to slip into cloud.
This is true for any experience level. Some years ago my company switched from the old B727 to our current B757. Those who had previously transitioned to the B727 from an old Learjet had to work harder when compared to some newer pilots who had previously flown ATR-42. How can a slow ATR pilot make a faster transition to a B757 than those with more experience in jets? Simple. Those who had to work harder had never flown a glass cockpit before.
Í was once a sim instructor on A320 and had a class of captains and first officers upgrading from a different airplane, analog 727s and 737-300/400 and those guys had a hard time not just on systems but scanning the various display units. Even tough the original "T" was still there, the different format presented some challenges, requiring some go back to ground school. Took some time to get used to the fast updating digital displays. So sad this happened.
The owner should have taken the controls of flying and had his friend navigate through the IFR flight. They should've worked together to land the plane.
I honestly feel most people need more training in regard to unusual attitudes. From all the incidents/accidents that I've watched from the ASI, it would seem people would get themselves into unusual attitudes and fail to recover properly. If you're in instrument conditions or at night, do not bank more than 20 degrees or standard rate.
Most of these stories, people let the plane get ahead of them and lose track of what's happening and what they need to pay attention to. They might not be looking at any bank angle indicator, but be distracted by any number of things, or just in a blind panic.
I transitioned from analog to glass without an issue. My guess is, they were having some other kind of problem that should have caused an emergency to be declared, but never did.
Perhaps the glass cockpit was a factor, by I find it hard to believe that's the primary reason the plane went down. I just went from a glass cockpit to old school controls(which I kind of like better) without a hitch. Something else had to have happened.
Among the most minuscule of details has led to some of the most NOTORIOUS of crashes in COMMERCIAL AIRLINE HISTORY... I'm particularly reminded of the late Soviet Union's reluctant acceptance of Western Aircraft, and the difference between the "old school" Soviet Artificial Horizon from the Newer Western version was so small... In one the horizon was kept level, where the plane (symbolized on the gauge) would tilt... AND in the other the plane-symbol would be kept level so the background horizon would tilt relative to it... AND pilots on BOTH sides of the philosophy of perspective have had severe difficulty, especially under stressful conditions, with getting acquainted with the other.. SO there are several crashes where the investigation cited that difference in attitude indication as the primary reasons a COMMERCIAL AIRLINE Pilot (with all the training that entails) would act upon his yoke and inputs EXACTLY OPPOSITE what the manual would prescribe for the flight conditions. It was down to a process of elimination, so there was NO other explanation, and by the flight data records, that's exactly what the pilot(s) did at the time. SO there are REASONS these dubious changes or customs or traditions of aircraft gauge are notorious or legendary... AND there are reasons you, too, will get warnings about certain birds or displays, and "quirks" of flying them, or trying to. ;o)
I was trained on steam gauges, and was resistant to change, but after one hour with an EFIS, was convinced. I promptly installed one in my experimental, at the same time increasing my panel space for other items. Not sure why this pilot had trouble just flying attitude with the EFIS. I have found it fairly easy with the airspeed and altitude tapes alongside. I think strongly, that it would be much more difficult, to transition from EFIS, to steam gauges.
I mean I would have had my plane owner friend be safety pilot while I practiced 3 instrument approaches before the trip, just so I could get used to the control feedback of the plane. Cardinals are a lot more stable than the RV-10, so it's easy to see why the plane got away from him. Plus who wouldn't want to make an excuse to fly your friend's cool plane more?
1. He wasn't proficient, there is a difference between current and proficient. 2 This wasn't caused by transitioning to a new aircraft. It was caused by extremely poor piloting. I see this all the time in instructing, Yes you COULD pass an instrument check ride at one time. But now some of these pilots have slipped so far that they are an accident waiting to happen. We as a group, and that includes AOPA, to need to find a way to insure pilots receive recurrent training if not to learn anything then at least as a checkup from an experienced highly rated pilot to make sure no bad habits have developed and to retouch any skills that may have degraded. A flight review every 24 months is no where near enough for a large chunk of pilots.
The pilots who have trouble flying a glass cockpit or having problem interpreting the EFIS information are showing their old age. We young people who grew up flying PC flight simulator and fighter combat simulator can easily understand the EFIS and love it. This somehow translate to the experimental pilots who with the more adventurous mindset tend to favor glass cockpit over the ancient and obviously obsolete steam gauges. I can't remember any experimental built within the last 5 years hss steam gauges.
Watch your ego and over reliance on the glass cockpits if your a real world pilot, kid. I prefer having steam gauges as back up when flying with glass cockpits. Real world flying is not a game.
@ Frank Court I’ve seen far more mechanical gauges fail than digital ones. I don’t have a single mechanical primary flight instrument in my aircraft, and that’s just fine with me.
@Eric Miret I'm not entirely convinced by that. I mean, I know the stats prove me wrong, but if your display fails for any reason and it's your only instrument, you're dead. Vacuum gauges work even if you have a complete electrical failure, and even in case of vacuum pump failure they still operate correctly for a while, and you can have a standby vaccum system fitted quite cheaply and then unless your engine blows up you'll always have instruments. Also if one of the instruments fails it's unlikely to affect the others. I'd be much more at ease in an aircraft that had both the glass _and_ some backup vacuum instruments, tbh.
With two pilots in the cockpit it doesn't make sense that the flight deteriorated as it did. Why couldn't they maintain altitude and airspeed? Why didn't they land immediately at Auburn if they were having trouble with the plane? Maybe the two were arguing rather than cooperating.
That sounds like the most likely explanation to me as well. I've been in _car_ rides that developed extremely heated arguments over which road to take to get to the destination, I can easily imagine the same happening here and both pilots getting distracted by the arguing.
why couldn't the owner-builder take the controls? He knows his plane best. even if he isn't IMC rated, he has hood time and should be able to get them out of there, at least to climb above the clouds. The tops are only 4500, right?
I agree, i just made this transition my self and i just find it hard to believe that with 2 pilots on board he could get so messed up reading a glass panel in minor imc
Romaine Perkins G1000s do have a backup. Reversionary mode(the red button between the PFD and the MFD) allows you to switch the PFD over to the MFD screen so you can keep your main instruments along with some map information. The system also has a backup ESS system for an alternator failure which will keep the entire system alive for 30 minutes.
I am surprised you can configure the glass cockpit to simulate the older style gauges. It is an LCD screen they could make the gauges look anyway they wanted.
Bad idea Keep things simple so many things can go wrong if they make it configurable The pilot should've made his homework before flying an unfamiliar airplane
I don't get the allure for GA pilots to fly IFR and IMC. I love to look out the window and see what I am doing: flying a plane above the ground, looking at the visual references and being in the act of flying - fully engaged. If you can't see you're just sitting in a box in a cloud. If it is to "get there" (itis) then get on a commercial plane if the weather is not good. Or fly around it, or drive, go tomorrow. Transition training in the new to you craft is key. Why not do that? I have seen this erratic flying behavior indicative of disorientation / indecision a couple of times now in these safety videos. Once that happens you wish you had an auto pilot. Turn it on, use it, let it fly you straight and level, get your head back on, make a good plan, then go for executing that plan. There might have been another issue we don't know about that caused the pilot to get into the "swerving" mode. Sorry for these guys.
Surely this aircraft had at least a basic autopilot that can keep wings level and hold an altitude? If it has glass gauges, surely these are slaved to an a/p. If that is the case, I don't understand why a pilot can't simply hold an altitude and establish straight and level while he sorts out the rest of the problems. Perhaps this aircraft could only be flown manually?
I've watched so many of these videos, and I know that people say it's very tough to fly in imc conditions. And I know that they say on this video that it's a different cockpit. ... But I still struggle to see how you can't keep track of the instruments in front of you.
Probably something distracted the pilot. Might have been a weird warning, might have been an argument with the friend, maybe the power on the display failed, or just plain tunnel vision because of stress.
I dont get this particular one at all. Transitioning from analogue to glass is not challenging to a "crash-the-plane" degree.... The REVERSE is really really hard, but what he was doing should have been easier than what he was used to. Digital requires virtually no instrument scan nor division of attention , and one thing that both (a) remains the same & (b)gets a helluva lot bigger is the ARTIFICIAL HORIZON. Its the largest, most pronounced display in the cockpit. Difficulty shooting an ILS -ok... all right, I'll buy that. Trouble telling which way is up with 300 actual logged and a 10 inch wide attitude indicator in your face? No. There's something more to this one. This does not add up. Maybe a display went out, maybe the other guy was trying to fly. Maybe they had a faulty AP they kept messing with.
I’m not buying the transition to glass theory here. Sure, tape displays take some getting used to, but the basic attitude information displayed on a glass panel is not that different from a traditional artificial horizon and the changes in airspeed and altitude described in the video require significant changes in attitude which is immediately visible on an EFIS. I think something else was going one here well beyond the transition from steam to glass.
i wonder if the Vans had autopilot.... I've seen an autopilot malfunction and fail to decouple, and the pilot was fighting that thing all the way to the ground, even declaring during severe VFR, just in case...
If you find it that hard to transition between glass and steam, you probably shouldn't be flying. Do you have trouble driving every time you rent a car with a different layout? Yes, I am a pilot, and I am not speaking to being proficient with navigation portion of glass, just the basic ahrs information as it is displayed.
Wait... No Analogue backups? Is that even legal? I was under the impression that it wasn't. At least, not from the kind of flight training manuals I have... Maybe it's a country specific thing... Still fairly sure there have to be at least some minimal backup gauges in an aircraft. Especially one that is certified for use in IMC...
Why do you even need an analog backup. Data shows the analog gauges have much lower reliability than the solid state glass cockpit. Also, the RV10 in question has dual redundant display and one small redundant EFIS unit. This setup has much more robust backup than any steam gauge setup.
What is the safety advantage of glass that looks so different from traditional instruments? If none, then why not make glass appear more like traditional instruments in the first place.
Glass is way easier to read quickly once you get used to it. There is a bit less visual indication of what the different parts of the readout mean exactly, but once you know what everything is instinctively, you can scan the instruments and get an update on what exactly is going on with your aircraft much faster than you can with the old fashioned dials.
No advantage, just familiarity. Round dials were used because it’s easier to manufacture round dials. The USAF and NASA having practically unlimited budgets used mechanical vertical tape displays on aircraft like the F-105, SR-71, as well as most US spacecraft from Gemini to the Space Shuttle. HUD displays also went to tape displays. Their research into human factors and performance concluded that it was superior... and civilian aircraft manufacturers adopted them as they could afford them... first in some analog displays like engine performance on the 747, L-1011, and Cessna Citation and for radar altimeters on later analog aircraft. As soon as glass cockpit displays became available they started moving all flight information to them. First airspeed with the 757 and 767. Then all information with the A320 and 747-400. And the proof is in the pudding. Aircraft accidents have been reduced considerably thanks to the increased situational awareness from this format. Unfortunately the high costs have kept these displays out of light aircraft. So most private pilots are only familiar with using traditional gauges.
Even with 15k hours I dislike these glass cockpit displays. To me the airspeed ribbon moves the wrong way. Pitching up the ribbon should move down to show airspeed reducing. So zero should be at the top.I know why it goes the way it does, it follows the convention of a engine ribbon gauge, zero at bottom.Just been watching a video of a Tornado pilot talking about his past. Mentioned the radio altimeter readout on his HUD, was just a bunch of numbers wizzing up and down. They had it changed to a small dial. Much easier to read.
USAF airspeed displays are reversed, but to me it is counterintuitive. And if a Tornado pilot is looking at either a digital or analog rad alt whizzing up and down he’s looking at the wrong thing. Like that F-16 pilot who took out the trees on the ridgeline. You’d better be looking outside or at a very good synthetic display.
@@MrBrandon3615 Lol I did private in a steam 152, then instrument in a glass SR20, then just 10 hours in a steam Arrow for commercial. You'll pick it up just fine.
I've never been interested in flying until I started watching this stuff. Is it possible to fit machine guns to small single engined aeroplanes in the US??? If it is I'm in.
Two nieve pilots and one very stupid and arrogant PIC ruined a beautiful plane. The new owner should have had a RV10 experienced pilot in the left seat.
Yeah, I really hate flying around behind a panel of Computer game screens! They tell me that, the "kids" that grew up playing these games adapt well to the "so called" glass cockpit planes! My bird is a hybrid. Some screen AND some genuine instraments! For safety of course.
What safety? My plane by virtue of it being originally designed in the 1960s is a hybrid of glass and steam instruments. Guess which ones fail most often? Guess which ones never fail even though they have reversionary capabilities as well as an independent backups? I’ll take computer games over grandfather clocks, any day.
Narrator: don't say "weather" to mean "bad weather." "Weather" is generic for all meteorological conditions. If you mean a specific type of weather, like rainy, say it, rainy weather.
Watching all these videos. Seems like this type of shit is so dangerous, why even bother with a private pilot license in the first place? Fuckin drive a car unless you’re a professional/military.
Those computer screens are for that generation of kids that grew up, refusing to pay attention in class. But, instead constantly staring at their "Phones"! Then, at home, refusing to study or do any homework. But vegatating in front of another screen playing "games"! Such minds have never been trained to think abstractly. And thus require a "digital" wrist watch, because they have never learned how to read a clock! If you put such "students" into a cockpit with standard "dial" gauges, they are completely befuddled! BUT! Give them the latest computer game? And they are right at home. (Definitely NOT the person I'm hiring to keep me safe on my next trip in our Company owned KingAir.)
Do you want them to get off your lawn, too? Yeah it's totally cool to have such robust technology like a failure-prone vacuum pump which, when it inevitably fails, takes out half of your panel. Except unlike certificated glass planes (and most experimental with glass), there's no backup! Do you also yearn for the days of LORAN? In my experience, people who want to wax poetic about the good ol' days of 6-packs and complain about how damn dumb "the kids and their newfangled Ataris" are would be hopelessly lost if you ever stuck them in front of a G1000.
I’ve got over 2000 hours in King Airs (1400 command time) flying in some of the toughest terrain and weather this world has to offer. I stare at my phone all of the time... just like every one of your generation does. ROTFLMFAO
