Talk:Glass cockpit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why the name?

Does anyone know why it's called a Glass Cockpit? --Richy 19:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

They originally were Cathode Ray Tubes (which have a glass face).[1] --Midnightcomm 04:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Electronic Flight Instrument System

Information changed to instrument for reason shown in discussion on EFIS page.Paul Lockheed 07:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

glass cockpits

In answer to the above question, does anyone know why it is called a glass cockpit, the answer is not simple.... and leads on to.....

1. The media cottoned onto a term originally coined by NASA in the 1970's, which referred to glass cockpits only in terms of the display of flight critical information (as defined by FAA standards of the time).

2. Glass Cockpits now refer to a family of hardware and software critical systems that form the back bone of many aircraft. In fact, displays have done so since the late 1980's (see Airbus, EH101 and alike), but in so many ways as to defy commonality.

3.To call glass cockpits a recent change is in correct. The basic premise of any aircraft system has been to make any aircraft system safer and easier to fly through the better display of aircraft data. As a result, pretty much any aircraft has had an element of 'glass cockpit' associated with it.

On this basis, I am not sure if glass cockpit is even a subject. I propose that glass cockpit is in reality a derivation of EFIS.

Please discuss

Apacheeng lead 23:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Photograph request

The article has a photograph of an An-24 cockpit to contrast traditional cockpits with glass cockpits. Since aircraft can be retrofitted with glass cockpits, I wonder if a better contrast might be provided by showing a traditional cockpit and a glass cockpit from the same model aircraft.--HarryHenryGebel 15:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

misleading statement

have completely replaced the mechanical gauges and warning lights

This is not true. Even in the current 787 photo, the backup gauges, instruments and lights are visible.

What is true is that they have replaced the Primary gauges and instruments.

Which "warning lights" are now on a PFD and not located as previous?

Just consider the aural warnings and the Airbus "stick-shaker" to consider how over-stated and misleading.

The pullout keyboard has nothing to do with this EFIS. I suggest merging this article. The Garmin G1000 article is almost an advert. Merge should be with http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/EFIS

Claims of fatalities

"The one drawback of glass cockpits is that they occasionally power off. While rare, when these power offs occur,the result is a fatal crash in 98% of cases.In 2012, there were 614 power offs resulting in 601 fatal crashes.There are about 1400 deaths per year."

Outlandishly unlikely that all 1400 deaths (unsourced figure) were all directly attributable to glass cockpit failures. Should probably be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.2.215 (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Especially since most pilots can land under VFR without instruments of any kind! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.142.67 (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Did much googling, could not find any sources for this claim. I found several articles that said that glass cockpit users experience a larger number of fatalities than steam gauge users, but not because of systesms failure. [2] would be typical of those articles. But nothing about panel failure leading to death. The idea that 98% of glass cockpit outages result in death is absurd. Found many stories of total electrical failure which did not lead to fatalities, and a number of people discussing total electrical failure leading to crashes due to pilots not realizing they had no power to extend gear and flaps - I think we should just delete this, as it's clearly not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.142.67 (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki

Could somebody please check and correct the German (Deutsch) interwiki. It links to an article about EFIS, which, as far as I understand, is not quite the same. Leo711 (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Dead Link

The link for reference seven has gone dead following a redesign of the NTSB website. I found what I think might be the corresponding document at the url http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/RecLetters/A08_53_55.pdf. However, I didn't read the original fact sheet, so I can't confirm it's the same document. Could someone with more experience with this subject check the link and update the article if appropriate? Banality (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Dubious

"Airbus has offered an optional fix, which the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has suggested to the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as mandatory, but the FAA has yet to make it a requirement."

This information came with one source (a broken link until I fixed it) which is rather informal, and is more than a decade old anyway. Does anyone know where to find more recent information? Henstepl (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)