X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:12:41 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from carbinge.com ([69.5.27.218] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.1) with SMTP id 5089004 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:39:33 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.5.27.218; envelope-from=jbarrett@carbinge.com Received: (qmail 17664 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2011 13:38:58 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; h=X-Originating-IP:Reply-To:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language; s=default; d=carbinge.com; b=OBtb4KXMDSnfsx4PZISPYifECRZzsnI1v9tcb0Q2nJbVrREC9fsms6Xhe2eHTkS3tr7L/BEAycH6Cq13Ir5uWepJ2E50H/ZwqAvYy3lA5lYd+uqlZYig6ljIyWWwp8Ex8q6XirmwEM1s5YQnBFnxqwjYGf7YthN915qYgU8VGWk=; X-Originating-IP: [66.235.58.63] Reply-To: From: "John Barrett" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: EFIS versus six pack X-Original-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 06:38:56 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <000601cc582c$056f3040$104d90c0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcxYG8M/wPu/zAeqRbaCZtGBAKtbjgADv+dQ Content-Language: en-us Agreed, The concept that this study is "randomized and controlled" isn't likely to be accurate. At the end of the day, there are so many factors involved that bear on the cause of accidents that a study of a limited group of accidents in a somewhat narrowly chosen group demands a thorough understanding of the factors leading to the accidents. The idea of comparing these two groups is a good one and as statistics mount it will be interesting and likely useful to remain informed of data that is collected. From this one study, I would not conclude that flying with a glass panel properly backed up is inherently less safe than avoiding same in favor of a "standard" steam gauge panel. My .02 John Barrett -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Edwards Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:43 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: EFIS versus six pack You all should be asking the question "why are pilots crashing EFIS aircraft?" The answers might surprise you. AvSafe Jeff Edwards 314.308.6719 mobile 636.532.5638 office Jeff.edwards@avsafe.com On Aug 10, 2011, at 7:57 AM, 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 > > > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3826 - Release Date: 08/10/11