NTSB: Glass Cockpits Do Not Improve Safety

NewsBot Epic Member

An NTSB study shows glass cockpit technology has not significantly improved the safety of small light planes, the NTSB said Tuesday, and the board recommended changes, from training to maintenance reporting, to improve the statistics. While data collected between 2002 and 2008 showed fewer total accidents for those aircraft equipped with glass panels, that total came with a higher fatal accident rate and higher total fatal accidents. For the period from 2002-2008, conventionally equipped aircraft suffered 141 total accidents with 23 having a fatal outcome. Glass-equipped aircraft suffered 125 total accidents with 39 having a fatal outcome. But the board's study also found the mission profile for each type of equipment package and the characteristics of the pilot were different between the two platforms. Generally speaking, higher-time pilots were flying longer flights with glass. That said, the NTSB was able to use the data to offer six recommendations voiced at the meeting. Five of those were related to equipment-specific training and one applied directly to testing requirements.Related Content ? NTSB Reports:NTSB Overview Report (PDF)Findings & Recommendations (PDF)Closing Comments (PDF)// -->

Read More...


Use this thread to discuss the article above. What are your thoughts about: NTSB: Glass Cockpits Do Not Improve Safety?

TPaddack Rookie Amity Harbor, New York

But the real question can the Na'vi on Pandora shoot bows and arrows through them

stinson Newcomer New Jersey

From 2002-2008, an aircraft equipped with electronic primary flight display was 2.3 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident. Staffer Loren Groff described the reliability of his conclusion as p=0.004. There are four chances in a thousand that his conclusion is a statistical fluke.

That may be true, but it doesn't tell us anything useful. Longer trips into IMC, without an instructor? Sure, you will have more fatals. Just because an electronic primary flight display was on board doesn't mean it was the cause. Association is not causality.

NTSB member Sumwalt asked the key question: If the weather were the same, and the pilots were the same, and the mission were the same, how would that change the conclusion? Groff was caught completely flat footed. He admitted that he couldn't answer that. He couldn't or wouldn't do that analysis over the last year.

Sumwalt was insightful and kind. He did not pursue his line of questioning. A college professor would have failed the sophomore who submitted work like this.

The single valid conclusion one can draw from this study is that the airplane equipped with a glass panel was more likely to come to a nasty end. The converse is also true, a round dial airplane, likely with an instructor on board, flying in VFR conditions within 25 miles of home is less likely to be involved in a fatal accident. THIS STUDY GIVES NO, NO, NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT YOUR NEXT FLIGHT WILL BE ANY MORE OR LESS SAFE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A G1000.

For all the tax dollars I pay, I hope the NTSB can spend another year to do the analysis to answer the question that is relevant to you and to me.