Those that don't get caught don't make the news either.

Respectfully disagree. The technology (reliability) of turbine engines and flight directors is what immediately came to mind.

No one has a better safety record than I do. :-)

I aim to keep it that way.

Mike C.

Yeah me too. Same for Penman.

I know some aircraft delivered new that resemble that statement as well.

Just ask anyone with Rockwell Collins databases how that's working out right now. A lot of owners with newish planes are upset because they lost vital approaches they need.

Your comment speaks to choosing a reputable and capable avionics shop, the same way you'd want to choose a reputable engine shop for overhaul, say.

Mike C.

Your ability to state the views of others is horribly broken.

Mike C.

This thread is bizarre.

We are talking past each other.

Technology has made being a pilot safer more often than not.

We agree that it is not a cure all.

Since you like to speak in absolutes, I could not resist the counter.

We've wandered off topic onto a subject that is as interesting as the original: what is the optimum level of automation? Most of us have GPS units, which do the triangulation we previously did ourselves using VORs. Some would be flummoxed if their GPS failed, but the technology probably adds to overall safety. How many of us have ABS braking on our cars? Is it a danger?

Automation probably does add another potential failure mode. If the fatality rate when it fails multiplied by the chance of failure is less than the reduction in fatalities, then it increases safety. Given the fatalities arising from spatial disorientation in GA, the GFC 600 and the DFC 90 have a low bar to pass.

Automation sometimes makes skills redundant which were previously highly desirable. This will sadden many of those with the skills. Some will oppose the change. None will stop it.

Veering back towards the original topic, it does seem that more recent airplanes are generally more difficult to upgrade. A new airplane is out of the question for $750K given the mission. But steam gauges could be replaced within that figure on an older airplane.

Ashley

Your ability to state the views of others is horribly broken.

Mike C.

What in the hell is that?

None, I accept this occurs all the time, that pilots of deficient skills complete flights where their deficiency remains unexposed.

An example would be a pilot incapable of handling an engine out in a twin. They will be luckier longer in the turboprop than in the piston.


Concur.

My point is that you cannot trade pilot competency away with an increase in technology. A pilot must always be able to fly the plane with stick, rudder, throttle. The FAA recognizes this and now asks pilots, specifically airline pilots, to do more hand flying.

A pilot who buys a particular airplane, specifically believing because it has more technology it allows them to be lesser trained or competent, is putting themselves in danger.

Mike C.

Remember those two ATP rated airline guys who flew a G1000 equipped 172 into the side of a mount west of Las Vegas? https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.avia ... 023&akey=1

182