glass not safer than 6-pack | FerrariChat
Buy

glass not safer than 6-pack

Discussion in 'Aviation Chat' started by rob lay, Mar 10, 2010.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. rob lay

    rob lay Administrator
    Staff Member Admin Miami 2018 Owner Social Subscribed

    Dec 1, 2000
    63,972
    Southlake, TX
    Full Name:
    Rob Lay
    #1 rob lay, Mar 10, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    I was surprised at these results. As a pilot I feel much more ahead of the plane and safer flying glass. Also significant to consider that glass pilots and flights are typically more experienced and longer XC's verse 6-pack mainly training and short hops. Even with this slightly fewer accidents with glass, but more fatalities. I bet looking apples to apples similar experienced pilots and type of flight the 6-pack would show SIGNIFICANTLY safer.

    Wow, these results are really opposite of what I would expect. Can we look at results taking out Cirrus accidents? ;)
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  2. jamie140

    jamie140 F1 Rookie
    Rossa Subscribed

    Oct 17, 2004
    3,298
    GTA/Marco Island, fl
    Full Name:
    Jamie
    #2 jamie140, Mar 10, 2010
    Result is directly related to the higher number of ifr flights using glass.
     
  3. rob lay

    rob lay Administrator
    Staff Member Admin Miami 2018 Owner Social Subscribed

    Dec 1, 2000
    63,972
    Southlake, TX
    Full Name:
    Rob Lay
    #3 rob lay, Mar 10, 2010
    I just find it hard to believe a 25-100 hour student/pp hour pilot is safer doing stalls and touch & go's for 4 hours than a 1,000 hour instrument pilot doing a 4 hour XC.
     
  4. ylshih

    ylshih Shogun Assassin
    Honorary Owner

    Mar 21, 2004
    20,434
    Northern CA
    Full Name:
    Yin
    #4 ylshih, Mar 10, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2010
    This is a pretty complex subject and probably relates to safety margin of the operation, human factors, perceived experience versus acquired judgement and so on.

    As I recall, the most accident-prone pilot was the one 50-100 hours after PPL and 100-200 hours after IFR-rating. This was a gap where the rating didn't match the judgement level (no experience). This declined slowly until the pilot had somewhere between 2000-5000 hours experience where it was then more related to currency. IMC incidents also have a higher % of fatals.

    Note that in Cirrus stats, 75% of fatal accidents had >400 hours experience, and 75% had higher ratings (IFR/CFI/Comm). See lesson#5. This was not normalized to underlying population, so the stats aren't so useful.

    http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/2009LessonsLearned.aspx

    The differences in usage and experience cited in the 6-pack/glass study could significantly bias the results compared to the relative benefits of the two panel types.
     

Share This Page