Dials or Glass? Your Preference?

[TonyC]

believe it or not i didn't resurect this thread--i know it looks like it--but it was there in the #1 spot ...who knows-computers

Somebody must have voted on it - - that bumps it to the top of the New Posts list without letting anybody know who did it. (That's what kept happening that drove the board crazy and led to the deactivation of polls altogether, and the removal of most.)

You posted and left a trail!


.

 

[semperfido]

aha... i enjoyed reading your thoughts on the subj just the same

 

[CatYaaak]

I don't think there's any question that glass is superior. Used correctly by non-complacent crew, it provides at-a-glance situational lateral and vertical awareness, tailored levels of information, and allows a wider variety of program-able visual cues/interface for more critical regimes of flight such as W/S alert/recovery, declutter mode, etc.

It's as far a step above round dials as HUD is above glass-only...and hand flying (especially in a Falcon...god I hate having to compliment the French) with HUD is a dream. Granted, not as fun as tooling around in a round-dial Waco, but about as much fun as you'll find in a civilian-world job.

 

[Whale Rider]

Dials work fine but Glass RULES!

 

[Guitar Guy]

My vote is for glass over round-dial. As a former 1900 pilot, I think it's important to have the great scan that the round-dials force one to develop. (The 1900D has "glass" but it's really just electronic CRT's that look very similar to the old analog guages.) But once you've got the background in understanding the instruments, a well-implemented glass cockpit with a crew that knows how to use it is superior for situational awareness.

 

[Caveman]

A scan is a scan is a scan. Glass or steam gauges you still have to collect the info, interpret it and adjust accordingly. Glass gives me the data in a more concise format and the mapping displays greatly help with SA.

I don't see where a preference for glass suggests a lack of or a deteriation of piloting skills. Either you hand fly or you don't. Using the flight director doesn't count either. At CMR our 50 seat CRJ's don't have FADEC or VNAV. The vast majority of pilots I fly with all hand fly to 10000 without the flight director and a lot of them also hand fly the last few thousand feet to landing, again without the flight director. Ironically it has been my experience that the pilots most likely to auto up at 500 feet are the oldest, most senior pilots. Almost all the young folks like to hand fly at least some part of every leg.

I know a lot of our guys and gals think that FADEC and VNAV and all that would be good to have. I'm not so sure. Even though we are coupled up for a lot of the flight I believe that the requirement to stay involved with pitch/power, even in an auto NAV mode, helps to keep us pilots more in tune with the flight. I happen to enjoy it that way, but that's just me.

 

[AAflyer]

Why not have both. At AA we have some 80s that are analog with a single GFMS, we have others that are glass (ADI, HSI with moving map). and some others from TWA that are excellent, they have dual FMS, VNAV, and glass.
It keeps you on your toes. I will have to agree with the other posters, situational awareness on the glass is "bar none" superior.

The other day the GFMS died, so we were flying VOR to VOR on the airways with the maps out, and held going into EWR, then back to ORD with 2 re-routes. I was physically exhausted after those 2 legs. The workload and CONSTANT monitoring of your position takes it's toll quickly.

AA

I guess without a GFMS or FMS, it is not RNAV but......UNAV??

 

[Clyde]

For those of us who have been flying for awhile, glass/EFIS is new and can be a bit intimidating... Most new pilots have been playing Microsoft Simulator and are fully familiar with glass cockpits before they step foot in an actual aircraft. Seems like many next generation cockpits require more "monitoring" than actual "flying" (at least after takeoff and before landing).

So, if you had a choice, what would you choose - an all analog aircraft (say a 737-200 or DC-9-30) or a full glass cockpit (say an Airbus A320 or B737-800) and why? Let's assume short-to-medium hall routes. Let's also assume that basic GPS is installed in the analog aircraft. If you fly all-glass, do you get bored at times and wish for more dials and switches?

Honestly, whichever one offers the best schedule, pay, and quality of life.

Now, to directly address your question: Analog guages make you more of a pilot and less of a monitor. Glass can create more work because of all of the added functions it is capable of doing. Things such as a crossing restriction in a glass airplane are simply done by programming the restriction and ensuring the airplane is properly set up to fly it. Even though it has the "magic" to do something like that, I still back up all of my flying mentally with math, because the computer is only as smart as the person who programmed it.

Overall, I prefer glass, especially on international flights. SA is greatly improved and the systems offer you some redundancy that you might not have on an analog-guage aircraft.

To answer your question regarding being bored, I think the amount of boredom is the same on both aircraft. Once the autopilot is engaged, there isn't any more excitement on one over the other.

I hand-fly the MD-11 from the takeoff roll right up to cruise. Once l level off, I call for the autopilot. I typically turn off the autopilot at 10,000' and hand-fly it all the way to touchdown. There are a few times when I will engage the autopilot early or delay turning it off, and that is usually because the workload of the monitoring pilot is greatly reduced because of the autopilot.

I did the same thing on the 757 and 767.

 

[h25b]

For those of us who have been flying for awhile, glass/EFIS is new and can be a bit intimidating... Most new pilots have been playing Microsoft Simulator and are fully familiar with glass cockpits before they step foot in an actual aircraft. Seems like many next generation cockpits require more "monitoring" than actual "flying" (at least after takeoff and before landing).

So, if you had a choice, what would you choose - an all analog aircraft (say a 737-200 or DC-9-30) or a full glass cockpit (say an Airbus A320 or B737-800) and why? Let's assume short-to-medium hall routes. Let's also assume that basic GPS is installed in the analog aircraft. If you fly all-glass, do you get bored at times and wish for more dials and switches?

A very entertaining sim instructor I had one time at FlightSafety pointed at one of those posters with all different kinds of jets and turboprops on it and asked me which one of these was the best to fly. I was naive and just spouted off one of them at random. He corrected me by telling me that the best one to fly was which ever one paid the most...

Point is that all of the glass, bells/whistles, FMS, and various other toys are nice but it's hardly what motivates me anymore.

 

[Heavy Set]

A very entertaining sim instructor I had one time at FlightSafety pointed at one of those posters with all different kinds of jets and turboprops on it and asked me which one of these was the best to fly. I was naive and just spouted off one of them at random. He corrected me by telling me that the best one to fly was which ever one paid the most...

Point is that all of the glass, bells/whistles, FMS, and various other toys are nice but it's hardly what motivates me anymore.

Nice to see this post come around again...

 

[sky37d]

Actually to clear things up we are getting Capstone Phase II installed which has a PFD dipsplay (both side) and a MFD.

well, with capstone off the air, I wonder how much good that will do.

 

[AdamKooper]

Anything with DC or MD infront of it should be scrapped. Especially the DC-9 I wouldn't put a Mesa pilot on that.

 

[Ty Webb]

Well, two years, and one airplane change since this string first appeared, I still cast my vote for round dials but a NAV display. I would also do away with autothrottles, but would keep low-speed protection.

 

[727gm]

I won't vote, as I don't have enough glass experience to fairly compare.

But I'll say that jumpseating in a B757 once fom the East Coast to PIT, the crew received three full-route re-clearances during cruise @ 10000/250Kts. A clear, blue sky, winter day. I was amazed at all the head-down button-pushing it required to do this each time, by BOTH crewmembers. As I watched for traffic, I considered how simple and non-distracting those changes would be without a glass cockpit.

Nowadays, the General Aviation community has the opportunity to become enthralled with the Garmin G-1000 "Attractive Nuisance" in their C-172's.

 

[CaptainMark]

Glass kicks ass.....who brought this thread back from the dead?