FearlessFreep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2002
- Posts
- 330
Just got back from my first experience with a glass cockpit as one of our aircraft has been modified with a setup similar to the 737-300 kind of arrangement. Well not my first experience, but the first in something other than a sad implementation of a first generation EADI/EHSI display. I have a fair amount of FMS experience in a non-automated installation so that capability is not new to me.
Overall I would say that the capabilities that the glass has over the steam gauges is certainly an improvement, but it certainly does not invalidate steam gauges. The one thing that I did find is that it does require a fair amount of heads down time when utilizing different modes. I can also see the how the glass cockpit could induce complacency. This is the simple byproduct of automation. How much of an affect does this kind of complacency have on continuing safe operations? Does the dependency on automation and the atrophy of previous skills represent a threat to us?
I endeavour never to lapse into complaceny - I can't as some of the aircraft in the fleet are hardball & the other is glass and there is no guarantee which one you will be flying. That should keep things interesting. I am looking forward to the challenge.
There are some things that steam gauges are just better at. You can just more quickly look at a regular analog gauge and extract your required information. I like having the full compass rose displayed. With glass the "center" position just gets too cluttered & the FMS mode does not show the same information as the VOR/LOC mode. With that mode you can instantly see any course deviations, something that is not readily apparent in the FMS mode other than looking at the little magenta course line. I miss the full functionality of the RMI, as on our aircraft selection of a ILS frequency on the Captain's side drops the any other VOR frequency in the FO's side, so you lose that positional awareness from the RMI. Of course with the glass you have your "moving map" so you can just "see" where the navaid, waypoint or airport position - of course you have to pick it out from all the other info.
Overall I think that the glass has the tendency keep people's eyes in the cockpit and not out. That has positive and negative implications. Though I could say that fixation on running the system could be a definite problem. I think the important thing to know is how to exit the automation quickly and effectively in a situation that might mandate that kind of action.
I like hand flying, so I utilized the system both hand flying & with automation. I am hoping that I never have to work somewhere where the only thing I am reduced to is being a button pushing system manager. Operating those kind of systems are not a problem for me, but just where is the fun in being only a computer operator?
I do find that the EADI & EHSI flat display to be superior to the somewhat three dimensional display of steam gauges. The flat screen display seems to remove any parallax effect that is inherent in the steam gauge design.
I remember watching a program on TV in which a head engineer at Airbus was being interviewed. His basic attitude was that the pilot was a superfluous un-needed part of the aircraft equation. His open disdain for having crewmembers even in the aircraft was disturbing. His feeling was that ALL control of the aircraft should be wrested away from the pilot and be completely controlled by automation, with the only job of the pilot being that of a system monitor. It almost seemed to be a power struggle between this engineer and pilots as a group. It would be an interesting discussion to see how many instances of incidents and accidents there are that are related to the failure of automation and the results of pilot intervention. We all know about the "pilot error" part.
Statisically we as pilots might be in the losing group - I will not go silently into that good night! Also remember there are three kinds of lies: Lies, D*mn Lies, and Statistics!
Overall I would say that the capabilities that the glass has over the steam gauges is certainly an improvement, but it certainly does not invalidate steam gauges. The one thing that I did find is that it does require a fair amount of heads down time when utilizing different modes. I can also see the how the glass cockpit could induce complacency. This is the simple byproduct of automation. How much of an affect does this kind of complacency have on continuing safe operations? Does the dependency on automation and the atrophy of previous skills represent a threat to us?
I endeavour never to lapse into complaceny - I can't as some of the aircraft in the fleet are hardball & the other is glass and there is no guarantee which one you will be flying. That should keep things interesting. I am looking forward to the challenge.
There are some things that steam gauges are just better at. You can just more quickly look at a regular analog gauge and extract your required information. I like having the full compass rose displayed. With glass the "center" position just gets too cluttered & the FMS mode does not show the same information as the VOR/LOC mode. With that mode you can instantly see any course deviations, something that is not readily apparent in the FMS mode other than looking at the little magenta course line. I miss the full functionality of the RMI, as on our aircraft selection of a ILS frequency on the Captain's side drops the any other VOR frequency in the FO's side, so you lose that positional awareness from the RMI. Of course with the glass you have your "moving map" so you can just "see" where the navaid, waypoint or airport position - of course you have to pick it out from all the other info.
Overall I think that the glass has the tendency keep people's eyes in the cockpit and not out. That has positive and negative implications. Though I could say that fixation on running the system could be a definite problem. I think the important thing to know is how to exit the automation quickly and effectively in a situation that might mandate that kind of action.
I like hand flying, so I utilized the system both hand flying & with automation. I am hoping that I never have to work somewhere where the only thing I am reduced to is being a button pushing system manager. Operating those kind of systems are not a problem for me, but just where is the fun in being only a computer operator?
I do find that the EADI & EHSI flat display to be superior to the somewhat three dimensional display of steam gauges. The flat screen display seems to remove any parallax effect that is inherent in the steam gauge design.
I remember watching a program on TV in which a head engineer at Airbus was being interviewed. His basic attitude was that the pilot was a superfluous un-needed part of the aircraft equation. His open disdain for having crewmembers even in the aircraft was disturbing. His feeling was that ALL control of the aircraft should be wrested away from the pilot and be completely controlled by automation, with the only job of the pilot being that of a system monitor. It almost seemed to be a power struggle between this engineer and pilots as a group. It would be an interesting discussion to see how many instances of incidents and accidents there are that are related to the failure of automation and the results of pilot intervention. We all know about the "pilot error" part.
Statisically we as pilots might be in the losing group - I will not go silently into that good night! Also remember there are three kinds of lies: Lies, D*mn Lies, and Statistics!
Last edited:
