How EFIS may be killing pilots

[scangadah]

[QUOTEand you may find, original poster, that it's not the EFIS, it's the training, and the blind following that goes with it.[/QUOTE]

That might be the single best line on Flightinfo, ever.

 

[AC560]

The issue goes back to the Colgan incident. If you can't fly a 6 pack in the check ride why are you flying the airplane? The issue isn't the training, the issue isn't the systems, the issue is people keep getting passed in checkrides by DPE's, Check Airmen, the FAA, etc. who are not capable of performing to PTS standards consistently.

 

[waka]

I defer to those CFIs with glass-given as a more credible source. I think the actual article may have been in AOPA some time back whereby they stated that moving-map experience helped with overall visualization skills and that glass had the advantage. I'm still flying in the stone age. S'cuse me, gotta kick the panel again to wake up them squirrels spinning the gyros.

I am in complete agreement with that statement. Moving map/glass does improve SA. However, on the same token, automation and one's SA being spoon fed to them can make a pilot lazy.

Also, than transition from glass to steam is definitely more challenging than steam to glass....I've experienced and seen it way too many times.

 

[Lynxman]

The issue goes back to the Colgan incident. If you can't fly a 6 pack in the check ride why are you flying the airplane? The issue isn't the training, the issue isn't the systems, the issue is people keep getting passed in checkrides by DPE's, Check Airmen, the FAA, etc. who are not capable of performing to PTS standards consistently.

I think PTS standards are a joke, but that's a personal opinion. Secondly since moving from steam to glass I feel like I'm almost doing something wrong. It's as if it's too easy and my mind thinks I should have had to do more work to realize the same thing the display may have told me. Instead of trying to manually figure out where I'm at in the hold or approach now I can look at my display and see my airplane overlaid on the approach plate. Don't get me wrong that's a great feature especially when your single pilot, but I'm afraid I may rely on it too much and be screwed if those screen went blank one day.

 

[livin'thesim]

It is difficult to make the argument that glass trained pilots will transition easier to steam with regard to positional awareness.

The ease of positional awareness glass usually gives would, to the transitioning pilot, make it very easy to become accustomed to the technology doing the mental mapping for them.

As a CFII, I have spent hours with my students doing navigation practice on paper.

I specify a radial, to/from, and heading. Then I have them draw the aircraft's position and directional orientation on a piece of paper. I do dozens of these on paper, then we practice in the PCATD. Set a position, have the student point to where they are on an approach plate and then tell me what vectors might be expected.

I do similar exercises for full approaches and holding. By the time we're done with that, in-aircraft training goes very smoothly with minimal positional confusion.

Now imagine a furloughed RJ FO flying a Baron in weather with no autopilot and a failed attitude indicator.

 

[hockeypilot44]

I've flown a bunch of different airplanes from Cheyenne's, King Air's, EMB-145's, 747's, A-320's, DC-9's, and some others that I have forgotten......I have come to the conclusion that an airplane is an airplane. They all fly the same.

 

[avbug]

Go work a heavy air tractor in the mountains in strong winds and see if you still feel the same way.

 

[aewanabe]

I am a former six-pack guy now flying the "heavy" metal at JetBlue. When I transitioned from 135 single-pilot to being an FO in an E145 I couldn't believe how low my workload became; all I really had to do was recalibrate my brain to jet speeds in the terminal area, high-altitude aerodynamics, etc.

I hand-fly with automation off as much as is appropriate based on the workload, and push myself to keep my mental skills (3-1, effect on headwind/tailwind on descent angle, timing for VDPs, etc....) as sharp as possible. I'm convinced if I got into a BE-58 in IMC without some serious re-training I'd be up the proverbial creek very quickly. YMMV

 

[diggertwo]

http://www.pilotbug.com/?p=2233

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued a press release announcing that it is conducting a study of the effects of EFIS cockpits in today’s light planes in regards to safety March 9th in Washington D.C. This is a good first step.

Hopefully they will include the concerns posted in this Pilotbug post on whether EFIS, or glass cockpits, have a deteriorating effect on the scans of pilots who transition to a “Six Pack” type cockpit display.

 

[JAFI]

IMHO it is not the aircraft or its “magic” or lack there of, it is the ability of the airman to know where they are, know where they are going (situational awareness), able to handle problems, distractions, re-routes, changes, and the ability to fly the aircraft - not have the aircraft fly them. It is simple airmanship. Too many pilots “drive it like a car” not fly it like an airplane.

If the airman cannot answer the simple question “do you turn right or left at ABC intersection?”, then all the magic in the world will not help. Sadly, I have seen this too many times on check rides. Basic rudder control, basic navigation, and basic aircraft handling ability is some how lacking in many applicants - at all levels. I have seen that pilots who learn to fly an aircraft (glider, tail dragger, basic Cessna 150) before they learn to program a GPS can “FLY” better than those who went into the magic first. IMHO, their focus was on learning basic airmanship not typing ability.

When an Instrument or ATP applicant gets lost, and I do mean gets LOST in a traffic pattern or on an approach the PTS required “when the outcome of the maneuver is never in doubt” rule is not met.

All that said, IMHO some pilots can transition from EFIS to a 6 pack with out a problem if they are taught properly. It is not the student (many times) who fails, but the Instructor. IMHO too many students and Instructors are just looking at the next step and not mastering the current one.