With one exception (a Cirrus crashed after the primary flight display failed and the pilot could not maintain control on the backup instruments), the move to digital flight instruments does seem to have slightly reduced the frequency of accidents caused by partial panel flying since there are no vacuum pumps to fail in a G1000.
Once again, glass cockpits have not invented new ways to crash airplanes: stalls and VFR-into-IMC were common causes. I did the same exercise for Cessna 172s, where the G1000 became an option in 2005. Buzzing a friend at 50 feet or continuing into worsening weather are bad ideas no matter what the avionics – a fancy panel should neither tempt you to make these mistakes nor be expected to save you if you do. Here’s a representative sample of NTSB probable causes before the introduction of glass cockpits: spatial disorientation, poor IFR technique on approach, VFR-into-IMC (more than one), stall/spin (one after takeoff on a hot day, one by a pilot very new to the airplane).Īnd after glass cockpits became the norm? The causes are depressingly similar: stall/spin, low pass leading to a stall, low level formation with glider in the mountains leading to controlled flight into terrain, in-flight icing, and of course VFR-into-IMC.
steam accident rate is almost impossible, but the individual accidents still offer lots of lessons. Again, the exposure is dramatically different (partially because Cirrus built a lot more airplanes between 20), so calculating a glass vs. To get a feel for the accident trends, I read every Cirrus fatal accident report for three years before the Avidyne Entegra was introduced in 2003, then compared it to a three-year period after glass cockpits were standard. Without considering this critical difference, most of the accident rates are just statistical noise. Quantifying this difference in exposure is difficult, but it’s likely that, compared to a steam gauge Cessna 150, the owner of a brand new Cessna 206 with a glass cockpit might fly the airplane more often, frequently single pilot, and in IMC. More importantly, hardly any of these safety studies control for exposure – the fact that higher priced, more capable airplanes are often flown on longer cross country trips and in worse weather. Such a trend doesn’t square with the idea that primary flight displays (PFDs) are bad for safety. By most objective measures, these technologically advanced airplanes now have a better safety record than the general aviation fleet average (see chart below). The accident rate for Cirrus Aircraft’s SR series, the most common glass cockpit airplanes, has changed dramatically in that time. Bad statisticsįor example, the oft-cited NTSB study showing that glass cockpit airplanes are no safer (and perhaps even less safe) than traditional analog cockpit airplanes is now more than ten years old.
Right now, the subject is defined more by hangar flying wisdom than hard data. As this new generation of retrofit glass cockpits makes its way into the general aviation fleet, it’s a good time to elevate the discussion about the relative merits and safety record of such equipment. But that is beginning to change, with new products from Garmin and Dynon pushing the price down below $10,000. Part of the reason glass cockpits are still relatively rare in general aviation is obviously cost – $30,000 is a lot to spend on avionics when the airplane is only worth $40,000. In fact, glass cockpits have been around longer than the iPhone, but while Apple’s smartphone is considered an essential part of daily life, Garmin’s avionics suite is viewed with suspicion by those who’ve never flown it.
Many pilots treat the Garmin G1000 and other such systems as if they are some passing fad, even though they have been standard equipment on new airplanes for more than a decade. The glass cockpit is one of those technological advancements that sneaks up on you.
0 kommentar(er)
