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?).