What's the fuzz about glass cockpits??

[MacPara23]

Excuse me if I ask a silly question but I'm relatively new to flying airplanes and so I might have missed why everybody seems to be totally thrilled by glass cockpits and seem to be totally thrilled about them. To the point that ordinary cockpits are put in a line with "steam gauges" as if there was something bad about them.
I've never flown in a plane with a glass cockpit but when I just look at the sample images of the latest and greatest of their kind, I find myself totally overwhelmed with the amount of information that is being presented at once. I regularly find myself stare at the screen and trying to figure out what I'm actually looking at. Not a good thing to me, if I consider myself flying at that moment.
Being able to exclude unnecessary information by just pointing my eyes briefly at the gauge that provides the information I need, i.e. airspeed or altitude, seems to be much better than trying to separate all the information presented on a modern glass cockpit panel.
Maybe it's just not for me but I'm wondering if I'm missing something that others have already figured out...
Is it a price issue, maybe? Is a glass cockpit cheaper than buying all the separate instruments one by one?
Let me know what you think...

[FastEddieB]

To get a Dynon PFD in my Sky Arrow was about $2,700.

I don't use it for much - I find the "steam gauge" airspeed and altimeter and inclinometer easier and quicker to interpret, and I have over 500 hours in all-glass Cirrus'.

About the only thing I routinely use it for is TAS & DA calculation, after I manually enter the OAT.

But its nice to have an attitude indicator of some sort if I ever accidentally find myself without horizon reference. And I don't think it was a lot more expensive than a conventional electric attitude indicator.



BTW, I get the "overwhemed" feeling you get when I look at a Garmin 1000 display. The Avidyne in the Cirrus was pretty intuitive and easy to interpret, however:

[cdillis]

I'm neutral on the topic of glass vs. analog. I fly both on a regular basis, and I don't really have a preference. But... here's what I see as the pros of both:

Glass
====
- No moving parts, which should mean less likely to break
- Lighter weight than analog
- Potentially less expensive than analog
- Potential to display more info in less space which should reduce your scan time
- Can add functionality through software updates without the need to replace/upgrade hardware
- Looks cooler, cleaner, more high-tech.

Analog
=====
- Can always read regardless of sun angle
- Needles pointing to colored arcs are quicker/easier to interpret than digital numbers
- Failures would likely be limited to single instruments
- Not reliant on electrical power (except in the case of electrical gyros), so in the event of a complete electrical system failure you'll still have some instruments. (To be fair... most glass panels have built in battery backups).

Those are just some of my thoughts.

Cheers,
Chris

[FastEddieB]

Good points all.

Let me mention one other thing.

The SIZE of some PFD's is a huge advantage. After over 30 years of (successfully) flying instrument with a 3 1/8" attitude indicator, I cannot overemphasize the impact of a 10" screen.

It's like your looking through the panel at a real horizon. And even when looking elsewhere, it is large enough that you can see changes in attitude in your peripheral vision.

A BIG advantage, IMHO!

[KSCessnaDriver]

I don't want to step on any toes here, but I think a lot of it has to do with age. At the old age of 21, I've used computer nearly daily for the last 15 years. I was raised on the computer and love having all the technology right there. I love glass panels, and I feel like I can pull information off of them quicker than I can the older style of panel's. I love the flexibility some of the EFIS setups have in regards to customization. I can change things, and the next guy can come in, and put things how he wants them, with very little effort.

But in general, I think a lot of it has to do with how long people have dealt with similar technologies. Not that I want to step on toes here, but I feel like the younger crowd is more likely to gravitate towards the glass panel, whereas the older crowd will gravitate towards the steam/conventional panel.

[zaitcev]

To get a Dynon PFD in my Sky Arrow was about $2,700.

I am not a certificated pilot (not just yet anyway), but it seems to me that your altitude gauge shows 13500 and the Dynon shows 13600. Is this within the tolerance (0.7%), or the base's pressure setting was incorrect, or they just show different things (e.g. barometric altitude differs from GPS-supplied one, perhaps)?
-- Pete

[MacPara23]

I don't want to step on any toes here, but I think a lot of it has to do with age. At the old age of 21, I've used computer nearly daily for the last 15 years. I was raised on the computer and love having all the technology right there. I love glass panels, and I feel like I can pull information off of them quicker than I can the older style of panel's. I love the flexibility some of the EFIS setups have in regards to customization. I can change things, and the next guy can come in, and put things how he wants them, with very little effort.

But in general, I think a lot of it has to do with how long people have dealt with similar technologies. Not that I want to step on toes here, but I feel like the younger crowd is more likely to gravitate towards the glass panel, whereas the older crowd will gravitate towards the steam/conventional panel.

That's what I secretly thought, too. But then ... I'm a Software Engineer and spend most of my time in front of any kind of display and I'm doing this for about 25 years now. Still, I don't seem to get comfortable with the glass cockpits as they convey data in an awkward way by using digits instead of a needle that points to an area rather than an exact number. Seems more intuitive to me to realize if I'm good or not.
BTW: Do some of these glass panels provide a simulated display of analog instruments like some of the Garmin GPS try to do? I guess, that could fix the problem I have with glass panels ...

[MacPara23]

BTW, I get the "overwhemed" feeling you get when I look at a Garmin 1000 display. The Avidyne in the Cirrus was pretty intuitive and easy to interpret, however:

I think you're right. The Avidyne looks indeed like something I could get used to. A good example how to declutter the overloaded displays of Dynon and Co. and focus on the things that are really important.
I kinda suspect that the competition in this market is currently driving the manufacturers to compete by adding more and more stuff to them which then has to get displayed somehow.... In this case less might be more, actually.

[FastEddieB]

...but it seems to me that your altitude gauge shows 13500 and the Dynon shows 13600. Is this within the tolerance (0.7%), or the base's pressure setting was incorrect, or they just show different things (e.g. barometric altitude differs from GPS-supplied one, perhaps)?

Nice catch.

They both should be showing "indicated altitude", IOW both are derived from ambient pressure adjusted to the local altimeter setting, in this case 29.96".

Variations such as this are not abnormal, at least in my experience. Note how hard it is to get the setting exactly right in the Kollsman window on the steam gauge. In this case I rely on the steam gauge, since its a certified instrument and the Dynon is not.

BTW, GPS gives you an approximation of "true altitude", which may vary greatly from indicated, due to non-standard pressure lapse rates in the atmosphere. This may be an interesting number to know, but is not ever used in flying (at least, not directly - except when on the ground)

And the transponder can be toggled to show pressure altitude - height above the standard datum plane, or, more simply, what your altimeter should read when set to 29.92". That's what it sends to ATC, which they then adjust on their end for the local altimeter setting. And it sends in 100' increments, IIRC, so small deviations are not even picked up.

Adjust that pressure altitude for temperature and you get density altitude, which the Dynon is showing as 13,920'. There's also a page where the Garmin can calculate that, along with winds aloft.

All stuff you learn for your pilot's license (except the Garmin stuff), and not as complicated as it seems.

As long as you're playing detective, what's the Sky Arrow's heading in the posted photo?

[FastEddieB]

One other thing...

...I don't fully buy the "age argument". I'm 60 and prefer the PFD.

Over on the Cirrus site, I'd place the average age north of 50, and nearly everyone there lusts after PFD's.

BTW, here's the Garmin 1000:



For me its too cluttered for a PRIMARY flight display, which should give you essential PRIMARY flight info. Add stress and/or fatigue and it could take too long to get vital info off that screen.

I've had experienced pilots say it took them in excess of 30 hours to get comfortable with it in IMC, whereas the Avidyne starts to feel natural after 2 or 3 hours.

[MarkGoolie]

I took a test flight in a SportStar this weekend and it has a glass cockpit. Initially I was overwhelmed with the information being stuffed all in one space. But as the time went on I was getting use to where to look to get the information I needed.

To me it seemed like knowing which area of the screen to look at was the same as know which gauge to look at in relation to it location in the panel.

By the way I decided to purchase the SportStar right after the test flight. If the pre-buy goes well she will be mine!

-Mark

[KSCessnaDriver]

For me its too cluttered for a PRIMARY flight display, which should give you essential PRIMARY flight info. Add stress and/or fatigue and it could take too long to get vital info off that screen.

I've had experienced pilots say it took them in excess of 30 hours to get comfortable with it in IMC, whereas the Avidyne starts to feel natural after 2 or 3 hours.

What would you like to see removed from the PFD then? Personally, that's exactly how I fly when I'm in the G1000, both insets up. One with the flight plan, one with the moving map, usually overlaying a strike finder, if I'm near weather at all. Couple that with the use of a FD (Flight Director) and I love the system.

Sure, the Avidyne is way easier to learn, I'll give you that. But its functionality is way lower. There are things you can do on a G1000 that you just can't do on an Avidyne (except perhaps the new R9 sytem, I'm yet to play with it).

[FastEddieB]

What would you like to see removed from the PFD then?

With a trained and proficient pilot, I'm sure all that info is useful.

But, like I said, a lot of pilots are reporting 30+ hours to get comfortable. And reports that just a couple weeks away from flying and the "buttonology" gets stale. And think of the poor pilot that just wants to rent one every once in a while.

I have a friend who'd a very competent pilot. He had about 30 hours in his dad's Perspective (Garmin 1000). Doing an ILS into Greenville, SC, we could not figure out why the autopilot was not capturing the glideslope. I don't think we do for sure to this day.

The most common expression in TAA aircraft is "Why is it doing THAT?"

[zaitcev]

As long as you're playing detective, what's the Sky Arrow's heading in the posted photo?

I trust a compass more, so I'd say 30 magnetic, which in New England gives some 40 true or so I heard (I live in New Mexico). Which is still way less than the 60 that GPS shows, I wonder why. Maybe you're not at the East Coast. And for Denon... It has a band on top which seems to indicate 10. That must be bogus, there's just no way.

-- Pete

[FastEddieB]

I trust a compass more, so I'd say 30 magnetic.

That might be true, if my compass didn't suck so badly.

Really, I'm looking at about 030º on the vertical compass, 010º on the Dynon and about 055º on the Garmin (which shows track, not heading).

FWIW, the vertical compass is way off. It was never "swung" with the 496 in place. I plan on finding a compass rose and straightening it out in the near future.

The Dynon compass is even worse. It varies all over the place. And the procedure for "swinging" it is very convoluted. Maybe eventually.

For now, right or wrong, I'm using the GPS, and flying the track adjusting it for any known wind - and it seems to have worked out fine with ATC so far.

But I HAVE to get that vertical compass swung!