X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:33:24 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from blu0-omc3-s4.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.79] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.1) with ESMTP id 5089354 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:30:06 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.116.79; envelope-from=gt_phantom@hotmail.com Received: from BLU0-SMTP215 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s4.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:29:30 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [99.101.70.201] X-Originating-Email: [gt_phantom@hotmail.com] X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: gt_phantom@hotmail.com Received: from [192.168.1.70] ([99.101.70.201]) by BLU0-SMTP215.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:29:29 -0700 X-Original-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:29:27 -0400 From: GT Phantom Reply-To: gt_phantom@hotmail.com Organization: None User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110419 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Colyn Case X-Original-CC: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: Re: [LML] EFIS versus six pack References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Aug 2011 19:29:29.0997 (UTC) FILETIME=[FD7D13D0:01CC585C] Hi Michael,

You left out a very important part of that study, leaving your conclusions questionable.

Even the persons who conducted the study suggested that at least part (or perhaps most) of the reason for the statistics had to do with people flying in airplanes that were not familiar. With steam gages, they all look pretty much the same; not so flat panels.

Like others, you have therefore drawn the wrong conclusion. It is not the EFIS that is "more dangerous," but the pilot who neglects to become extremely competent with their chosen panel before flying IFR "for real."

If you are going to strictly fly random rentals, I would agree that your best strategy is to stick to steam gages. If, however, 99% of your flying will be in your own plane then you simply need to become completely knowledgeable about / comfortable with your panel before flying into the soup.

Fly safe!

Bill

On 01/-10/-28163 02:59 PM, Colyn Case wrote:

michael,   got a link to that report?

On Aug 10, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Michael Smith wrote:

All these discussions about panel upgrades and so on begs the question as to
which setup- a an EFIS and flat screen set up or standard spinning gyros
works better in terms of delivering an intact crew and passenger to the
terminal and a plane that is reusable for further flight. I clearly agree
the panels look cool, but I do pay attention to peer reviewed science.  The 

Cirrus folks did a study and the results published about a year ago
comparing the conventional gyro panels and the EFIS in the same model of
plane- as close a randomized controlled trial in aviation as possible these
days.  

The EFIS cohort bent more planes and orphaned more kids than the old school
gyros. 

So I won't be flying with an EFIS until someone can prove they're safer.

Michael Smith
LIV now over 1000TT



--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html