Dials or Glass? Your Preference?

[Chronic Jetlag]

Glass...hands down. I've had the privilege of flying the super old Beech-18 to partial glass B75/76 to full glass MD11/A320. For SA you can't beat glass. Although it takes lots of self discipline to stay sharp in glass....I think that's the key! Old round dials by nature and design forces you to stay sharp.

 

[sbn340mech]

My father is definatly a stick and rudder pilot. Started with UAL in '66. When he was introduced to the glass ckpt concept (B757) in the mid 90's he absolutly hated it. At that time he was a capt on the 727. He was lookling to go to a bigger a/c and when the 757 didn't work out he went to the old school DC-10. When the 10's were retired he gave glass another try with the 747-400 and ended up catching on fairly well. He retired on '03 and now enjoys boring holes in the sky in his J-3 Cub.

 

[TonyC]

Dials or Glass? Your Preference?

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?

Old thread that I "voted" on a long time ago, but never posted. Now that I've gone from "Round Dials" to "Glass" and back, and since semperfido revived the thread today, I thought I'd toss in a thought or two.

First, it's apparent to me that the issue of "Round Dials" vs "Glass" is often confused with the issue of automation versus hand-flying. That does a disservice to the original question.

"Round Dials" and "Glass" are both methods of presenting information to the pilot. "Round Dials" require very little, usually NO work on the part of the pilot to present the information they can present, and no amount of work will enhance that information. The exception to this observation, of course, is the navigation information, which depends on the frequency dialed into radio control heads, and sometimes courses and headings "spun" into the individual instruments.

"Glass," on the other hand, requires a bit more work during preflight, usually in the form of typing into a computer keyboard interface. An FMS is the common tool, here, and it should be noted that it is this computer and the information that it presents that distinguishes "Glass" from fancy or modern forms of "Round Dial" instruments. A computer screen that displays "pictures" of round dials, or even other shaped instruments (tapes, lights, whatever) is nothing more than a glorified "Round Dial." It is the collection of various forms of intrument readings and the superimposing of computer-generated information on that basic instrument that constitutes the "Glass" difference. In other words, a computer screen that shows a picture of an RMI is no different than a regular old RMI (which, ironically, usually has a glass cover). However, when you superimpose a radar picture, TCAS traffic, and a line depicting your current flightpath onto that RMI, you have "Glass."

That said, I am a huge fan of "Glass." The situational awareness that is afforded by the prudent use of the tools of glass simply cannot be matched. I believe the work done during preflight to program the FMS is paid off many times over by the superiority of the information that is returned. I've witnessed that one of the most common problems that people learning glass have is not in having too little information, but in finding the information that is most pertinent at the particular moment in time. There's usually MORE than enough information available, and it's convenient, too. It's just a matter of learning where to look and when. I miss my glass!


On the other hand, my preflights are much shorter when I don't have to initialize the FMS. I can do everything in my preflight in the 727 at a very methodical, casual pace, very thoroughly, in much less than 10 minutes. The same can't be said for the Captain's preflight in the MD-11. Programming the FMS for the OAK-SFO leg takes more time than the flight, if you know what I mean.

On the separate issue of hand-flying versus automation... there's an appropriate time for both. When the autopilot can fly the airplane, your attention can turn to other things that might be important - - like traffic at lower altitudes. Use the autopilot too much, though, and your skills begin to suffer. I lke to handfly, whether it's glass or "steam guages," and, believe it or not, the wings don't really care what I'm looking at.

 

[aa73]

Nice thing about AAs MD80s, you can go from full steam gauge to half efis/steam gauge to full efis/digital gauges, all during a 3-leg trip. I don't even notice the difference anymore.

That said, I defintiely prefer the full EFIS/digital layout just for convenience... not to mention that the steam gauge 80s have these puke-green cockpits - actually, it is the same as a DC9 cockpit color. Whoever designed that color spent a few years looking at a jail cell wall.

 

[semperfido]

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

 

[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.