[malcolm]

NTSB STUDY SHOWS INTRODUCTION OF 'GLASS COCKPITS' IN GENERAL AVIATION AIRPLANES HAS NOT LED TO EXPECTED SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS‏
NTSB AVIATION LIST (aviation@listserv.ntsb.gov) on behalf of NTSB Press Releases (
NTSB PRESS RELEASE

************************************************************



National Transportation Safety Board

Washington, DC 20594

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 9, 2010

SB-10-07

************************************************************

NTSB STUDY SHOWS INTRODUCTION OF 'GLASS COCKPITS' IN GENERAL

AVIATION AIRPLANES HAS NOT LED TO EXPECTED SAFETY

IMPROVEMENTS

************************************************************

Washington, DC -- Today the National Transportation Safety

Board adopted a study concluding that single engine

airplanes equipped with glass cockpits had no better overall

safety record than airplanes with conventional

instrumentation.

The safety study, which was adopted unanimously by the

Safety Board, was initiated more than a year ago to

determine if light airplanes equipped with digital primary

flight displays, often referred to as "glass cockpits," were

inherently safer than those equipped with conventional

instruments.

The study, which looked at the accident rates of over 8,000

small piston-powered airplanes manufactured between 2002 and

2006, found that those equipped with glass cockpits had a

higher fatal accident rate then similar aircraft with

conventional instruments.

The Safety Board determined that because glass cockpits are

both complex and vary from aircraft to aircraft in function,

design and failure modes, pilots are not always provided

with all of the information they need -- both by aircraft

manufacturers and the Federal Aviation Administration -- to

adequately understand the unique operational and functional

details of the primary flight instruments in their

airplanes.

NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman highlighted the role that

training plays in preventing accidents involving these

airplanes.

"As we discussed today, training is clearly one of the key

components to reducing the accident rate of light planes

equipped with glass cockpits, and this study clearly

demonstrates the life and death importance of appropriate

training on these complex systems," said Hersman. "We know

that while many pilots have thousands of hours of experience

with conventional flight instruments, that alone is just not

enough to prepare them to safely operate airplanes equipped

with these glass cockpit features."

Today, nearly all newly manufactured piston-powered light

airplanes are equipped with digital primary flight displays.

And the number of older airplanes being retrofitted with

these systems continues to grow.

"While the technological innovations and flight management

tools that glass cockpit equipped airplanes bring to the

general aviation community should reduce the number of fatal

accidents, we have not -- unfortunately -- seen that happen,"

said Hersman. "The data tell us that equipment-specific

training will save lives. To that end, we have adopted

recommendations today responsive to that data --

recommendations on pilot knowledge testing standards,

training, simulators, documentation and service difficulty

reporting so that the potential safety improvements that

these systems provide can be realized by the general

aviation pilot community."

Based on the study findings, the NTSB made six safety

recommendations to the FAA:
1) enhance pilot knowledge and

training requirements;
2) require manufacturers to provide

pilots with information to better manage system failures;
3)

incorporate training elements regarding electronic primary

flight displays into training materials and aeronautical

knowledge requirements;
4) incorporate training elements

regarding electronic primary flight displays into initial

and recurrent flight proficiency requirements for pilots of

small light general aviation airplanes equipped with those

systems, that address variations in equipment design and

operations of such displays;
5) support equipment-specific

pilot training programs by developing guidance for the use

of glass cockpit simulators other than those that are

approved by the FAA as flight training devices; and
6)

inform the general aviation community about the importance

of reporting malfunctions or defects with electronic flight,

navigation and control systems through the Service

Difficulty Reporting system.


he complete safety study will be available at www.ntsb.gov

in several weeks.

###

[J.O.]

A glass cockpit is just another tool. Without proper training and operating experience in how to use it (an apprenticeship of sorts), you're bound to have problems. Without it, many people aren't able to handle and interpret the information provided.

This post has been edited by J.O.: 10 March 2010 - 09:04 AM

[Moon The Loon]

Exactly, J.O.

When introduced into transport category jets, the old generation pilot had too much information to process. If I recall, some displays were "dumbed down" for this reason. As experience grew and as training programs and simulators improved, we now tend to take the new info for granted. Private and small corporate operators don't have the same training available, methinks.

[Say Again, Over!]

I find that even GPS can work against safety in small VFR aircraft. It used to be, in deteriorating conditions, that you would realize that conditions weren't good enough to continue visually since you needed reference points on the ground. Nowadays, how many pilots press on because the little screen says "only" 23.51 NM to destination?

I've also seen many restricted airspace incursions by someone going direct to his destination and recently, in the CYQB area, an aircraft making his way to the maritimes on a "direct" route wound up colliding with the highest mountain in the area.

We're a long way from drawing a red line on a map and looking for obstacles along the route... THAT worked.

Felix

This post has been edited by Say Again, Over!: 10 March 2010 - 10:09 AM

[Kip Powick]

Say Again, Over!, on 10 March 2010 - 01:09 PM, said:

We're a long way from drawing a red line on a map and looking for obstacles along the route... THAT worked.

Felix

Felix......


A red line..a red line ????? Never............. http://theairlinewebsite.com/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin1.gif Not allowed cause all us ex- Mil types had red lighting in the cockpit for night driving whiz-bangs and a red line would "vanish"........

Black line for day/ night VFR http://theairlinewebsite.com/public/style_emoticons/default/Grin-Nod.gif http://theairlinewebsite.com/public/style_emoticons/default/Grin-Nod.gif No political correctness back then, used to tell the troops to "throw a Black on the Map and light the fire, we're gone !!!!"

Dotman in Smallville

[Say Again, Over!]

:white:

Kip! Of course!!

Back in the days I did the course, I used a red grease marker. It was probably the only colour left. :wacko:

:075:
:lol:

I love the new smileys!

[JL]

I oftern wonder what would happen to the budding commercial pilot who trains from the beginning to multi-IFR with the G1000 only to get their first job doing single pilot IFR work in a 1972 Navajo with nothing but analogue gauges. I suppose the future SMS 703 operators would identify this issue as a risk and produce a stellar training program to ensure the transition to steam was effective.

[Dork]

If we listened to the financial wizzards , bean counters ,press and managements one would think that to fly an airplane it only requires a person to " push a few buttons".

What an enlightment to those folks, and the missinformed public at large, it must be to actually realize that it takes skill to fly an airplane.

Stop the presses indeed. :Scratch-Head: Duh

[boestar]

Arent the Sectional charts created in such a way that anything in RED on the map is NOT required during night flying? I thought this was like this as the red lines wouldnt show under red lighting.
That what I was taught anyhow

[Kip Powick]

boestar, on 11 March 2010 - 09:18 AM, said:

Arent the Sectional charts created in such a way that anything in RED on the map is NOT required during night flying? I thought this was like this as the red lines wouldnt show under red lighting.
That what I was taught anyhow

I really don't know about sectional maps now, but "back then" but we used multi colored topo maps for low level Tac work and at night we always used black ink to draw the lines to the IP and target. As Felix stated many used a grease pencil on the map (if they were laminated).

I would assume that Felix used a very thick grease pencil as that would give him more latitude for "track error".http://theairlinewebsite.com/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

[Say Again, Over!]

Right on Kip! Bring on the half inch grease pencil!

:Dancing-Chilli:

Felix

[J.O.]

Why measure with a micrometer when most military low level nav exercises are more like cutting with an axe? http://theairlinewebsite.com/public/style_emoticons/default/stirthepot.gif http://theairlinewebsite.com/public/style_emoticons/default/whistling.gif

[Kip Powick]

http://theairlinewebsite.com/public/style_emoticons/default/Grin-Nod.gifFor J.O. http://theairlinewebsite.com/public/style_emoticons/default/Grin-Nod.gif http://theairlinewebsite.com/public/style_emoticons/default/Grin-Nod.gif

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/dixie/recreation/fishing/Fishing_Cartoon_02tra.gif

[J.O.]

Good one! http://theairlinewebsite.com/public/style_emoticons/default/Clap-Hands.gif

[Moon The Loon]

Red lighting hasn't been used in professional (for lack of a better word) cockpits for decades. One of the problems with age is the ability to discern long-wavelength colours such as reds and purples when oxygen pressure drops such as at altitudes greater than 5,000'. So things illuminated by red light tend to go completely dark. Meaning, if Kip's fisherMAN was fishing at night under the red light, he would never see the tongue waving in his general direction :biggrin1:

[Kip Powick]

Moon The Loon, on 12 March 2010 - 05:14 AM, said:

Red lighting hasn't been used in professional (for lack of a better word) cockpits for decades.

Sorta gives you an idea of when I was flying in the Mil, doesn't it??http://theairlinewebsite.com/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif and no.....we didn't listen to "the wind in the wires", nor wear long scarveshttp://theairlinewebsite.com/public/style_emoticons/default/blush.gif

[conehead]

Red lights in the flight deck aren't that old. DC-9's and 727's had the type of map light that you could twist the lens to make the light red...

Attached File(s)

•  light.JPG (82.68K)
  Number of downloads: 1

[Moon The Loon]

conehead, on 12 March 2010 - 03:19 PM, said:

Red lights in the flight deck aren't that old. DC-9's and 727's had the type of map light that you could twist the lens to make the light red...

Both types introduced in the 1960's: I'd say my use of the word "decades" applies! :biggrin2:

[boestar]

I think you are correct Moon as the "newer" aircraft do not have them. I do think the sectionals are still drawn that way though.
I have a red lenz on the maglight in my flight bag.

[conehead]

Moon The Loon, on 12 March 2010 - 01:21 PM, said:

Both types introduced in the 1960's: I'd say my use of the word "decades" applies! :biggrin2:

I was introduced to the world in the '60s, and I'm not obsolete yet! :lol: