message deleted
Printable View
message deleted
These are the pictures I couldn't post because the dooby on the software was broke.
The one is of Winchester's new instrument panel, and the second is his recently souped up motor installation.
I understand his bling level for POG II will be similar in quality and sophistication.
Jeff, Jim........
Can we dial that photo posting deal back down so we can keep the prolateriate off the board? It's like the kids discovering ice cream stashed in the freezer.
And all this from a Newell wannabe? I think it's past your nap time. ;)
This is only the start Winchester.
Now that they made a web site for dummies I will be unstoppable.
This is actually the new JW panel. Old timer steam gauge guys will just hurl....
http://www.garmin.com/products/g600/...pt-g600-LG.jpg
I'd be impressed if that panel was installed in N630SU.
That would mean you are hand flying approaches because that set up has no provision for autopilot connections.
But despite all the blather, what exactly does this new technology do that steam gauges don't do?
Situational Awareness
If you can get me lost or disoriented in my steam gauge plane I will concede your point. But make the challenge interesting. If you cannot get me lost a year of groveling would be good.
I guess I would go back to the point, why do you need an HSI? Or a DG instead of a compass. Or VOR instead of the old four course radio range where you had to listen to Morse code and figure out where you were.
All of these were state of the art at some point. No longer. And steam gauges are going the same way or at least on new planes.
And I can get you lost with gauges, but you can also use the gauges to figure out where you are. Maybe. Eventually. Imagine you are IMC and had no idea where you were. Don't know the local VOR frequencies because you don't know where local is. How do you tune that radio to get a bearing? You might use a ADF if you want to listen to the radio long enough for the station to broadcast where they are.
You can get me lost with a GPS and in about 5 seconds I will know where I am, which way I am going and which way I need to be going. :)
How can that be possible oh great flame snuffer! I'm flying "to" the next VOR cross checking progress with the 2nd VOR by radial, DME to either VOR for distance, enroute chart in lap following the victor airway, in positive control (remember, we're IMC), ADF tuned for cross check (station of my choice) and one squeeze of the PTT switch away from my friendly controller telling me exactly where I'm at in the event of a brain fart.:D
OK I'll cave in, if I owned another aviating machine and Mrs Truk would take a break from the Bus, a panel like yours would be fantastic!;) Out with the old and in with the new.. Geez, IMC must really be boring these days with all this new stuff, but remember, ya gotta go back to basics if the magic box takes a crap.:eek:
CAVU and squawking 1200....
Despite what might be teasing, I am deadly serious when I say I have great concerns about the current avionics and the pilots that use them without developing positional awareness skills. Jerry's points are all correct and valid, but the guys flying the fancy obxes today fly the magental line and if you turn the box off, despite having everything but the pretty picture these guys have become so mentally lazy they have no clue where they are relative to anything.
The Cirrus is the proof. That plane has the best available avionics and a lousy safety record.
The stuff today is great, but unless a pilot develops positional awareness skills, he will be exactly like the 757 crew that flew into the mountain in Columbia because they punched in the wrong identifier, and followed the magenta line right into the side of a mountain. They were not mentally verifying what the pretty picture was showing.
I can state that postional awareness saved my bacon on several occasions. Once flying in the soup lee of Albany International and I was assigned an altitude below the terrain of hilly Troy, NY. The chart on my knee board coupled with my knowledge of the area triggered my request for a safer altitude. I may have embarrased the controller, but avoided flying into a hillside. Ken
Am joining the que behind Jon, Tom and Ken. Have used both systems for years, they both have their limitations. Steam works fine and it's what most of us grew up with. Glass is very nice if you can afford it and are proficient with it. The point is to NEVER find yourself on the guages having no idea where you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Winchester
Since 99% of our flying is not in the clouds, it's just plain dangerous to be fooling with the toys when we should be looking out the windshield. I know you know that Jerry, its part of being a tailwheely.:D
BrianE
94 Liberty XL
No doubt all good points. But the fact is, you have to tune and verify via the Morse or voice identifier a VOR frequency just like you have to input and verify a waypoint. You have no less responsibility to assure one than the other.
Has anyone ever flown into a mountain because the tuned up the wrong VOR? Bunches of times. In fact, so many times that they have changed one of the VORs in Arkansas to RICH MOUNTAIN so that you would think about the terrain.
I have terrain avoidance awareness now that is 100X better than what I had before (me with a map and flying a plan with an MEA). I also have the Mode S traffic in areas where it is offered. Does that relieve me of having to look out the window for VFR traffic? No, but it sure makes it easier to find those Mooneys and it is way nice to know how many 150s there are in the pattern at DWH when the tower shuts down at 10pm.
The point of this whole discussion is steam gauges vs glass cockpit and the arrival of new technology that is destin to improve situation awareness, navigation, IMC operations and the like. Statistically, does the Cirrus crash because of the G1000 or because you can go buy one and fly it with a newly minted pilots license? I think people are wanting to bypass the "time building" phase of their flying career and unfortunatly, this is precisely where you learn to avoid all those pitfalls in a much more forgiving venue.
My statement about getting someone lost with a VOR was a reply to Jon's comment. My answer is around the hypothetical position that if you lost power (nav, comm, etc.) and were flying on partial panel in an area of the country that you were unfamiliar with, a GPS with a battery might just save your life. Or at least the odds are better that the landing you are about to make is one you can walk away from. Having suffered both an inflight vacuum pump failure and an alternator / power failure, I am keenly aware of the need for partial panel ability.
But I never have to look at a paper map with two VORs tuned in to know where I am. My plane never had DME until I got the GPS(s). Did the old timers howl when DME came about and you didn't have to cross check and calculate where you were? How about when they had to have a navigator and they took star readings? Which would you rather shoot, an ADF approach or a GPS/RNAV approach? The magenta line is the same as the OBS needle. If the little plane stays on the line or the needle stays inbetween the dots what does it matter? Except my GPS also has an OBS with dots as well. I can bracket for the wind or fly until the course and heading number are the same. For me, the latter is easier than the former.
The underlying point is, does technology making flying safer and more enjoyable rather than causing us to rely on tools that are not as efficient nor as reliable? My response is yes. The pretty picture that inclues, weather, terrain, course, objective and relative position is better than a map neatly folded in my lap while I am dialing up Flight Watch to find out what lies ahead.
Jerry,
We are both posting things that are correct. Just so there is no confusion I agree that a MFD, or a 396, or a 430, or a 530 or even a glass panel is far better than steam gauges.
Where we don't seem to be communicating is how we envision technology to impact aviation safety.
Since I was brought up on steam gauges and a well equipped plane had dual nav-coms and a single ADF my brain was forced to create the picture now shown on the current displays. By being forced to mentally create the situational awareness picture I am now of the generation that has a picture of where I am, where I am going, and what turns I have to take to get there.
That skill once gained is a tremendous cockpit asset. The 757 pilots that flew into the side of the mountain had every current feature you describe as being available to the current GA fleet, but the pilots obviously lacked the mental picture. If they had one they would have never blindly followed the turn commanded after a typographical error created the wrong waypoint.
Combine the old steam gauge skills, with proficiency on the current avionics displays and you have an enormous advantage over a pure steam gauge cockpit, or a glass cockpit with an unskilled positional awareness pilot.
My only concern about the new displays is that the pilot is provided with so much information I fear a pilot's focus is lost in the clutter and I think flying the plane is becoming secondary to processing the data provided by the current avionics. If I am wrong, why is it that today, ten years from the introduction of the 430 and similar avionics has the GA safety record remained the same. Theoretically we should never hit a mountain, or get into bad weather, or screw up an approach (can you say Hendricks Racing?).
I would agree with wondering about the safety statistics. But I think the two main killers of GA pilots (1) running out of fuel and (2) continued flight into IMC (not instrument rated), are somewhat unrelated with respect to glass, so one doesn't count but could enhanced awareness be driving these non IFR pilots into the soup?
I know my fuel totalizer is hooked up to my 430 and if I put in a destination that is beyond the current fuel total at current flow rate, it will let me know in short order. Now I can screw that up by not setting it up properly, so that is why I time the burn per tank rather than trust the gauge only.
Nobody can ever prove what was going through a pilot's mind just before he makes a fatal mistake, and those that survive errors that could prove fatal often do not realize the severity of their error so we mortals can only surmise all of the contributing factors.
But your examples are perfect to support my contention that pilots are letting their brains take a break when they get into well equipped planes. It is a rare high end or capable plane today that does not have a fuel totalizer or some means to supplement the fuel gauges. But as you point out pilots run out of fuel. My fuel gauge is, and always has been a clock.
Pilots still fly in IMC when they shouldn't, and despite the displays, they still spank the ground. I can clearly see a pilot with steam gauges getting upside down or augering into the side of a hill, but I now have radar, XM weather, and a strikefinder along with terrain warnings, not unlike what anybody with a typically equipped complex plane today has. How the hell can anybody not stay upright, get into weather or hit the ground with all of the cheap information now available compared to my original dual nav-coms and ADF? In fact, forget glass cockpits. How can a pilot screw up today if he has a 396? The answer is brain fade.