Unless you're completely immersed in IMC, even a "total failure" of a glass
cockpit should be more of an inconvenience than a safety issue. And if
you're talking about those IMC conditions, then you already have some
complex systems in use that you rely on which could just as easily fail as
the glass versions.


"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
Assume you are in an automobile, boat, or locomotive with a glass cockpit,
and you have a total failure of the glass cockpit.

You close the throttle and/or apply the brakes and come to a stop. No big
deal.

But if you are in an aircraft and have a total glass cockpit failure you
have a major problem.

Contrary to your statement, there is something "better" about steam
gauges:
a history. With steam gauges we have a history, we know about when they
will
fail and what the failure points will probably be.

But with a glass cockpit, the only failure information we have is
computer-projected, we don't really know much about what their in-service
failure history will be.

Prudence would dictate not only that you back up an unproved system, but
that you back it up with a proved system.

Five years or so down the road, when we have some realistic, real-world
failure data, you will probably see pilots becoming more receptive to
glass
cockpits. But until more service data is built up, a healthy dose of
caution
is in order...





"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Dennis,

You should go work for the NTSB, since you're clairvoyant an accident
causes.

Once all the magic smoke leaks out of those electronic chip thingies,
life
is a bitch...


Once something fails, the regulation-mandated back-up kicks in. It
doesn't
matter whether that's vacuum, a second battery or whatever else. There's
nothing inherently "better" about steam gauges - except they satisfy
reluctance in the face of progress. We'd still be living on trees if
everybody had that mindset.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)