"Mxsmanic" wrote in
Examples of the "situations" to which you refer.

The recent crash of a Cirrus in Manhattan.

You said:

Because the set of situations in which the gadgets actually increase
security is much smaller than the set of situations in which they
_appear_ increase security to the unsophisticated observer.

Now you're just being obtuse.


Sub-clinical, right? IOW, you can't back your claim with statistics.

I don't need to back my claim at all. This isn't a contest.

Correct. You don't even have to make a coherent response at all. But, it's
generally accepted that only trolls and morons make statements they won't
back up.

I've worked with computers for decades. I know how poorly they are
programmed and how badly systems are designed. I know that nothing
with the apparent functionality of certain glass cockpits today can
possibly be certified safe for the price points at which they are
sold. Therefore they are almost certainly accidents waiting to
happen.

In your opinion for which, as you note, you don't need to provide any
evidence.

Nothing prevents you from flying with such equipment, if you choose
not to believe me (or if you enjoy taking risks). But I would suggest
that you limit your flights to VMC if you are using glass instruments,
and not fly anything that gives glass avionics control over the
aircraft unless you have a positive way of disconnecting that control.

You don't really know much about avionics. I back that statement with the
above paragraph as evidence.

m