Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

This question is the result of the wrong runway issue at LEX last
weekend.



Not having flown an EFIS or EFMS myself, I'm not sure of the "into
position checklist items". For example, in a standard steam-gauge panel
one of the last things we check is to align the directional gyro with
the runway heading and compass. With an EFIS or EFMS, is there any such
last minute check, or is the heading assumed to be correct because it
was aligned by the GPS when the bird came out of the chocks?



If there is no requirement to manually align and verify runway heading,
compass, and EFIS/EFMS then our technological advances have
inadvertently removed one of our heretofore unrecognized safety checks.



I heard some retired commuter pilot on the news last weekend suggesting
that the only way to prevent this in the future is to put traffic lights
(stop / go) on the end of every runway. I absolutely got the impression
that he was there to convince the public that it is almost impossible
for the pilots to get it right and the lack of the traffic signal was
the whole cause of the problem. Sort of the typical "not my fault"
attitude.

[Beavis[_1_]]

In article <004101c6ce26$e77966d0$4001a8c0@omnibook6100>,
"Jim Carter" > wrote:

> Not having flown an EFIS or EFMS myself, I'm not sure of the "into
> position checklist items". For example, in a standard steam-gauge panel
> one of the last things we check is to align the directional gyro with
> the runway heading and compass. With an EFIS or EFMS, is there any such
> last minute check, or is the heading assumed to be correct because it
> was aligned by the GPS when the bird came out of the chocks?

No, the GPS doesn't align the heading gyro -- an electronic flux gate
does. There are two independent heading gyros, and two independent flux
gates to set them. If there's a disagreement of more than a few
degrees, an error flag will come up, and the crew will troubleshoot to
see where the error lies.

So yes, on that type of system, the heading is assumed to be correct.
The odds of both flux gates failing at exactly the same time, but to
exactly the same erroneous heading, are about nil.

[Jose[_1_]]

> So yes, on that type of system, the heading is assumed to be correct.
> The odds of both flux gates failing at exactly the same time, but to
> exactly the same erroneous heading, are about nil.

Are the flux gate sensors located near each other?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

> I heard some retired commuter pilot on the news last weekend suggesting
> that the only way to prevent this in the future is to put traffic lights
> (stop / go) on the end of every runway.

I saw this demoed somewhere (but I don't remember where). It was pretty
cool. There was a row of read lights across the taxiway access to the
runway until cleared for takeoff.

-Robert

[Beavis[_1_]]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> Are the flux gate sensors located near each other?

Depends on the model of airplane, I'm sure. Though I don't know the CRJ
enough to answer with respect to it, on my airplane there's one near
each wingtip, purposely placed as far from interference as possible.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>Are the flux gate sensors located near each other?
>
> Depends on the model of airplane, I'm sure.

I would expect that for those models where the sensors are close
together, the right stray magnetism (whether deliberate or accidental)
could cause both redundant systems to have the same error.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:

>>> Are the flux gate sensors located near each other?
>>
>>
>> Depends on the model of airplane, I'm sure.
>
>
> I would expect that for those models where the sensors are close
> together, the right stray magnetism (whether deliberate or accidental)
> could cause both redundant systems to have the same error.
>
> Jose

A whole lot of design work goes into isolating those flux gates. And,
most of the mainline airliners have three IRUs, so they don't even use
flux gates. Everything is in true, then automatically converted to
local magnetic for display purposes.

[Sam Spade]

Jim Carter wrote:


> I heard some retired commuter pilot on the news last weekend suggesting
> that the only way to prevent this in the future is to put traffic lights
> (stop / go) on the end of every runway. I absolutely got the impression
> that he was there to convince the public that it is almost impossible
> for the pilots to get it right and the lack of the traffic signal was
> the whole cause of the problem. Sort of the typical "not my fault" attitude.

If he thinks that is the only way, he is clueless.

[Sam Spade]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>>I heard some retired commuter pilot on the news last weekend suggesting
>>that the only way to prevent this in the future is to put traffic lights
>>(stop / go) on the end of every runway.
>
>
> I saw this demoed somewhere (but I don't remember where). It was pretty
> cool. There was a row of read lights across the taxiway access to the
> runway until cleared for takeoff.
>
> -Robert
>

That has been tried off and on for years, with less than great success.
It is a saturation job for someone in the tower to keep the system
working. Sooner or later, a wrong signal is sent.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Spade ]
> Posted At: Saturday, September 02, 2006 4:03 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
> Subject: Re: Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
>
> Jim Carter wrote:
>
>
> > I heard some retired commuter pilot on the news last weekend
suggesting
> > that the only way to prevent this in the future is to put traffic
lights
> > (stop / go) on the end of every runway. I absolutely got the
impression
> > that he was there to convince the public that it is almost
impossible
> > for the pilots to get it right and the lack of the traffic signal
was
> > the whole cause of the problem. Sort of the typical "not my fault"
> attitude.
>
> If he thinks that is the only way, he is clueless.

My sentiments exactly Sam.

My question was more along the lines of new systems removing old safety
checks, but no one seems to be addressing that. Is there any physical
action that must be taken as an aircraft with and EFIS / EFMS moves into
position for takeoff to assure that the compass / gyro (or suitable
substitute) / display all agree on the runway heading? Could the modern
glass cockpits be setting us up for incidents or accidents because
insidious little actions we used to take with analog panels aren't
necessary any more?

[Michelle P]

Jim Carter wrote:
> This question is the result of the wrong runway issue at LEX last weekend…
>
>
>
> Not having flown an EFIS or EFMS myself, I'm not sure of the "into
> position checklist items". For example, in a standard steam-gauge panel
> one of the last things we check is to align the directional gyro with
> the runway heading and compass. With an EFIS or EFMS, is there any such
> last minute check, or is the heading assumed to be correct because it
> was aligned by the GPS when the bird came out of the chocks?
>
>
>
> If there is no requirement to manually align and verify runway heading,
> compass, and EFIS/EFMS then our technological advances have
> inadvertently removed one of our heretofore unrecognized safety checks.
>
>
>
> I heard some retired commuter pilot on the news last weekend suggesting
> that the only way to prevent this in the future is to put traffic lights
> (stop / go) on the end of every runway. I absolutely got the impression
> that he was there to convince the public that it is almost impossible
> for the pilots to get it right and the lack of the traffic signal was
> the whole cause of the problem. Sort of the typical "not my fault" attitude.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
In the modern jets and many GA airplanes too the DG automaticly aligns
the correct magnetic heading. Checking the EFIS heading prior to take
off was not on our companies checklist.

Michelle P

[Sam Spade]

Jim Carter wrote:

>
> My question was more along the lines of new systems removing old safety
> checks, but no one seems to be addressing that. Is there any physical
> action that must be taken as an aircraft with and EFIS / EFMS moves into
> position for takeoff to assure that the compass / gyro (or suitable
> substitute) / display all agree on the runway heading? Could the modern
> glass cockpits be setting us up for incidents or accidents because
> insidious little actions we used to take with analog panels aren't
> necessary any more?
>

Probably the best tool is a highly-detailed moving map presentation of
the airport diagram. Having said that, the pilot still has to know the
difference between "22" and "26."

[Sam Spade]

Michelle P wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> In the modern jets and many GA airplanes too the DG automaticly aligns
> the correct magnetic heading. Checking the EFIS heading prior to take
> off was not on our companies checklist.
>
> Michelle P

It should not have to be on any company's checklist. Some things are
basic airmanship.

[Michelle P]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Michelle P wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> In the modern jets and many GA airplanes too the DG automaticly aligns
>> the correct magnetic heading. Checking the EFIS heading prior to take
>> off was not on our companies checklist.
>>
>> Michelle P
>
>
> It should not have to be on any company's checklist. Some things are
> basic airmanship.
Not after having the basic stuff trained out of them.....
Follow the check list, follow the checklist, follow the checklist........

get the idea?
Michelle P

[Beavis[_1_]]

In article <jchKg.2674$c07.2060@fed1read04>,
Sam Spade > wrote:

> > In the modern jets and many GA airplanes too the DG automaticly aligns
> > the correct magnetic heading. Checking the EFIS heading prior to take
> > off was not on our companies checklist.

> It should not have to be on any company's checklist. Some things are
> basic airmanship.

No, they're equipment-specific procedures. Doing a mag check prior to
takeoff is not "basic airmanship" either, nor is realigning the DG every
15 minutes. They're specific procedures required by specific equipment,
and neither is relevant on a modern turbine-powered airplane.

Did you align the IRUs in your 152 before you started moving? Check the
landing gear doors as part of your walk-around? Of course not, because
they're not appropriate procedures for THAT AIRPLANE. See what I'm
getting at?

[Ron Natalie]

Jim Carter wrote:
> This question is the result of the wrong runway issue at LEX last
> weekend.
>
>
>
> Not having flown an EFIS or EFMS myself, I'm not sure of the "into
> position checklist items". For example, in a standard steam-gauge panel
> one of the last things we check is to align the directional gyro with
> the runway heading and compass. With an EFIS or EFMS, is there any such
> last minute check, or is the heading assumed to be correct because it
> was aligned by the GPS when the bird came out of the chocks?
>

Why would the EFIS be any different than an HSI (or as Bob already
posted the 707 RMI). It still has a heading which ought to be
verified with some real reference (Whiskey compass or runway).

Of course it's easy to get complacent. Back when I had a regular
DG that had to be set, I cross checked it against the compass/runway
on takeoff as a matter of course (since it was almost assuredly wrong).
Now that I have a slaved HSI, it's almost always right so I could see
forgetting to check it. Of course, I also have GPS plotting my position
on the Jepp airport diagram page if the field has an instrument approach
so I probably was one up on these Conair guys.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Beavis ]
> Posted At: Saturday, September 02, 2006 11:40 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
> Subject: Re: Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
>
....
> Did you align the IRUs in your 152 before you started moving? Check
the
> landing gear doors as part of your walk-around? Of course not,
because
> they're not appropriate procedures for THAT AIRPLANE. See what I'm
> getting at?

I see what you saying about specific procedures for particular aircraft,
but shouldn't heading cross-checks be basic airmanship?

In the analog aircraft that entails manually setting the DG when
cross-checking with the runway and compass. Having not flown and EFIS /
EFMS equipped aircraft, my question was is there a similar cross-check
or has the system negated that necessity. It seems from the answers that
the heading cross-check is no longer manual or an actual checklist item,
so the system has eliminated that safety check.

Now the question becomes, would a checklist item have caught the
complacency if that is truly what the root cause of the LEX accident
turns out to be?

[Ron Natalie]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> I heard some retired commuter pilot on the news last weekend suggesting
>> that the only way to prevent this in the future is to put traffic lights
>> (stop / go) on the end of every runway.
>
> I saw this demoed somewhere (but I don't remember where). It was pretty
> cool. There was a row of read lights across the taxiway access to the
> runway until cleared for takeoff.

This is used some places. After a spate of Runway Incursion accidents
(well like five years later, even the FAA's knee jerk reflexes are slow)
the FAA did all sorts of things from pilot education, ATC procedure
changes, charting, signage, ground radar, and lights to try to diminish
runway incursions.

It's amazing to me that sort of stuff SHOULD have applied equally to
the "WRONG RUNWAY" (how to you avoid incursions if you don't know which
runway you are turning onto?). Didn't seem to have worked.

[Michelle P]

Jim Carter wrote:
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Beavis ]
>>Posted At: Saturday, September 02, 2006 11:40 AM
>>Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
>>Conversation: Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
>>Subject: Re: Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
>>
>
> ...
>
>>Did you align the IRUs in your 152 before you started moving? Check
>
> the
>
>>landing gear doors as part of your walk-around? Of course not,
>
> because
>
>>they're not appropriate procedures for THAT AIRPLANE. See what I'm
>>getting at?
>
>
> I see what you saying about specific procedures for particular aircraft,
> but shouldn't heading cross-checks be basic airmanship?
>
> In the analog aircraft that entails manually setting the DG when
> cross-checking with the runway and compass. Having not flown and EFIS /
> EFMS equipped aircraft, my question was is there a similar cross-check
> or has the system negated that necessity. It seems from the answers that
> the heading cross-check is no longer manual or an actual checklist item,
> so the system has eliminated that safety check.
>
> Now the question becomes, would a checklist item have caught the
> complacency if that is truly what the root cause of the LEX accident
> turns out to be?
>
>
>
You would only check the EFIS heading if the Comparator smelled trouble
and triggered a warning. The computer cross checks the left and right
systems so the pilots do not have to.
Michelle P

[Sam Spade]

Michelle P wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Michelle P wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> In the modern jets and many GA airplanes too the DG automaticly
>>> aligns the correct magnetic heading. Checking the EFIS heading prior
>>> to take off was not on our companies checklist.
>>>
>>> Michelle P
>>
>>
>>
>> It should not have to be on any company's checklist. Some things are
>> basic airmanship.
>
> Not after having the basic stuff trained out of them.....
> Follow the check list, follow the checklist, follow the checklist........
>
> get the idea?
> Michelle P

I think I do.~ I did it for 27 years. Placing the runway heading on a
steam gauge HSI was considered good form at my company, but certainly
not a checklist item.

[Sam Spade]

Beavis wrote:

> In article <jchKg.2674$c07.2060@fed1read04>,
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>>In the modern jets and many GA airplanes too the DG automaticly aligns
>>>the correct magnetic heading. Checking the EFIS heading prior to take
>>>off was not on our companies checklist.
>
>
>>It should not have to be on any company's checklist. Some things are
>>basic airmanship.
>
>
> No, they're equipment-specific procedures. Doing a mag check prior to
> takeoff is not "basic airmanship" either, nor is realigning the DG every
> 15 minutes. They're specific procedures required by specific equipment,
> and neither is relevant on a modern turbine-powered airplane.
>
> Did you align the IRUs in your 152 before you started moving? Check the
> landing gear doors as part of your walk-around? Of course not, because
> they're not appropriate procedures for THAT AIRPLANE. See what I'm
> getting at?

I think the context of the thread is air carrier equipment. Virtually
all airliners have heading bugs. They all had them at my airline when I
signed on in 1964, and that continued to the 767.

[Beavis[_1_]]

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:

> Why would the EFIS be any different than an HSI (or as Bob already
> posted the 707 RMI). It still has a heading which ought to be
> verified with some real reference (Whiskey compass or runway).

It is verified, by two redundant computers that will set a warning flag
if they're off by more than a few degrees. (4 degrees in the plane I
fly.) If either gyro isn't tracking correctly, or isn't agreeing with
the actual magnetic heading (sensed by two independent flux gates), the
warning will trigger the second the airplane makes its first turn on the
ground.

This system provides MORE accuracy and MORE redundancy than correcting a
manual DG to a whiskey compass, and frees the crew to check the myriad
of things that do require human interaction to verify before flight.

> Now that I have a slaved HSI, it's almost always right so I could see
> forgetting to check it.

These airplanes have more than a slaved HSI. They have two (or more)
separate, independent remote heading gyros, slaved to two (or more)
separate, independent heading sensors (flux gates). If anyone ONE of
those 4+ systems reads differently from the others, a warning will trip.

I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree here. This isn't a case
of losing redundancy, it's the case of an automatic system being able to
do a better job than a human at this particular task. (Do you think an
old-style, manual variable-pitch prop is a better system than a
constant-speed prop, because it keeps the pilot more involved? I sure
don't.)

[Jose[_1_]]

> Placing the runway heading on a steam gauge HSI was considered good form at my company

Why? The runway heading is rarely a factor of ten on the nose, and
having an even heading is only good for an instrument takeoff. So,
you'd be usually setting the DG to an incorrect heading just before takeoff.

Makes no sense to me.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:
>> Placing the runway heading on a steam gauge HSI was considered good
>> form at my company
>
>
> Why? The runway heading is rarely a factor of ten on the nose, and
> having an even heading is only good for an instrument takeoff. So,
> you'd be usually setting the DG to an incorrect heading just before
> takeoff.
>
> Makes no sense to me.
>
> Jose

I am not speaking of DGs, Jose. This is about an accident involving air
carrier equipment.

We set the exact runway heading. Often, the departure clearance is to
fly runway heading. Even if it is not, runway heading is to be flown to
at least 400 feet.

Our steam gauge autopilots or flight directors all had a heading mode.

The EFIS/FMS birds had a heading mode and a track mode. ATC got unhappy
with folks flying track mode when they were instructed to maintain
runway heading; thus the reason for today's AIM language in that regard.

I cannot image why a professional crew flying today's air carrier
euipment would not set the runway heading. It could have saved a lot of
grief at LEX.

[Jose[_1_]]

> This is about an accident involving air carrier equipment.
> Often, the departure clearance is to fly runway heading.

I infer you mean that you set the heading bug on the exact runway
heading, not that you set the DG to the runway numbers (times ten).
That makes more sense.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michelle P ]
> Posted At: Saturday, September 02, 2006 1:17 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
> Subject: Re: Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
>
....
> You would only check the EFIS heading if the Comparator smelled
trouble
> and triggered a warning. The computer cross checks the left and right
> systems so the pilots do not have to.
> Michelle P

I think that is my point; if the computer cross-checks the left and
right systems and not the pilots, then who tells the computer to depart
on runway 26 instead of 22?

It seems to me that when the task (not the responsibility) of checking
the HSI or DG was assumed by the computer, the pilots abdicated the
responsibility of making sure everything balanced: runway heading, HIS
or DG, taxi instructions, and take-off clearance. I think if they had
included a manual check of the headings they might have noticed they
were off by 40 degrees.

I believe it is the pilots' responsibility to observe these things and
not the controllers' responsibility to run traffic signals at the
hold-short line.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:

>> This is about an accident involving air carrier equipment.
>> Often, the departure clearance is to fly runway heading.
>
>
> I infer you mean that you set the heading bug on the exact runway
> heading, not that you set the DG to the runway numbers (times ten). That
> makes more sense.
>
> Jose
Airliners don't have light aircraft type DGs. It is either an HSI or,
far more likely, a track-up moving map with an appreviated compass rose
at the top. Or, like the G-1000, it could be an electronic HSI.

[Sam Spade]

Jim Carter wrote:


>
> I believe it is the pilots' responsibility to observe these things and
> not the controllers' responsibility to run traffic signals at the
> hold-short line.
>

That cuts to the chase.

[Beavis[_1_]]

In article <005b01c6cf0f$0425e810$4001a8c0@omnibook6100>,
"Jim Carter" > wrote:

> > The computer cross checks the left and right
> > systems so the pilots do not have to.
>
> I think that is my point; if the computer cross-checks the left and
> right systems and not the pilots, then who tells the computer to depart
> on runway 26 instead of 22?

The computer manages the heading information, not the departure path.
The pilot normally sets a heading bug on the runway heading before
takeoff.

Look, these guys *thought* they were on runway 22, obviously. So if
they'd been in a plane with a regular DG, and realigned their DG to a
"runway heading" of 226 degrees while pointing down 26, what's the
difference?


> I think if they had
> included a manual check of the headings they might have noticed they
> were off by 40 degrees.

Put simply, the headings are never wrong; it's a pointless check to
make. How often do you calibrate the speedometer in your car? Exactly.
It's that reliable.

Believe me, these guys have plenty to check before takeoff, including
programming the FMS for the trip, running checklists, calculating power
settings, etc. One of them is to verify there are no caution flags on
the flight displays -- if there aren't, then the heading is fine. In
many modern jets, the magnetic compass is in a delicate retractable
mechanism in the ceiling, and is only pulled down in the event of a
heading gyro problem.

Yes, there should be a check between the heading *BUG* and the runway
heading, and this might have been missed on the fateful takeoff;
hopefully that's one of the things the data recorder stored.


> I believe it is the pilots' responsibility to observe these things and
> not the controllers' responsibility to run traffic signals at the
> hold-short line.

On that, I absolutely agree. While I'm sure the controller feels guilty
here, he shouldn't. ATC's job is to keep the planes from hitting each
other.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Beavis ]
> Posted At: Sunday, September 03, 2006 12:15 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
> Subject: Re: Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
>
....
> Look, these guys *thought* they were on runway 22, obviously. So if
> they'd been in a plane with a regular DG, and realigned their DG to a
> "runway heading" of 226 degrees while pointing down 26, what's the
> difference?
>
Don't overlook the part in the process where the pilot is supposed to
compare the COMPASS heading to the RUNWAY heading before setting the
gyro heading. If they'd done that, the accident might have been
prevented. (I say might because we still don't know if everything
mechanical was functioning properly during the accident.)

....
>
> Yes, there should be a check between the heading *BUG* and the runway
> heading, and this might have been missed on the fateful takeoff;
> hopefully that's one of the things the data recorder stored.
>

This goes to the root of my question - has the new technology allowed us
to eliminate these types of checks from the checklist? I believe it may
have, so the only point of this thread is to get us all thinking about
how technology also has a tiny "dark-side" component for which we must
be on guard.

[Sam Spade]

Beavis wrote:

> In article <005b01c6cf0f$0425e810$4001a8c0@omnibook6100>,

> Look, these guys *thought* they were on runway 22, obviously. So if
> they'd been in a plane with a regular DG, and realigned their DG to a
> "runway heading" of 226 degrees while pointing down 26, what's the
> difference?
>

These airplanes don't have DGs that can be set in that manner. In the
accident aircraft it was either flux-gate corrected gyro compasses or
inertial referenced compasses; neither of which are set by the pilots in
a Cessna 172 manner.

[Beavis[_1_]]

In article <suEKg.3536$c07.22@fed1read04>, Sam Spade >
wrote:

> > Look, these guys *thought* they were on runway 22, obviously. So if
> > they'd been in a plane with a regular DG, and realigned their DG to a
> > "runway heading" of 226 degrees while pointing down 26, what's the
> > difference?
>
> These airplanes don't have DGs that can be set in that manner.

Hence the first clause of my sentence, which said, "So IF THEY'D BEEN IN
A PLANE WITH A REGULAR DG...."

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Beavis ]
> Posted At: Sunday, September 03, 2006 12:54 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
> Subject: Re: Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
>
....
>
> Hence the first clause of my sentence, which said, "So IF THEY'D BEEN
IN
> A PLANE WITH A REGULAR DG...."

Why do you have to be in a plane with a regular DG to complete a
checklist item that compares compass heading AND HSI or EFIS heading to
anticipated runway heading?

Wouldn't they have been likely to notice a 40 degree discrepancy if the
item had been on the checklist?

We are concentrating too much on the specifics of the technology instead
of the original question asking if modern technology has allowed us to
skip or eliminate useful checklist items.

There probably is a yes and a no answer to this question. The point is
to think about the possibility and take appropriate actions.

[Sam Spade]

Beavis wrote:

> In article <suEKg.3536$c07.22@fed1read04>, Sam Spade >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Look, these guys *thought* they were on runway 22, obviously. So if
>>>they'd been in a plane with a regular DG, and realigned their DG to a
>>>"runway heading" of 226 degrees while pointing down 26, what's the
>>>difference?
>>
>>These airplanes don't have DGs that can be set in that manner.
>
>
> Hence the first clause of my sentence, which said, "So IF THEY'D BEEN IN
> A PLANE WITH A REGULAR DG...."

Oh, okay.