*** PREVIOUS RESULTS *** Last week, AVweb pit glass-panel displays against the analog variety, hoping to find out where our readers stand on the issue.
What we learned is that there aren’t many die-hard fans of the analog panel out there. 11% of you preferred the glass panel hands-down, while a substantial 37% of respondents cited the glass panel’s superior reliability and situational awareness. 1% of participants (only seven of you) thought that glass panels are easier to learn and therefore superior to analog because they reduce the risk of pilot failures.
A large segment of respondents (39% of you) said you’d love to have a sampling of both analog and glass-panel cockpit features – if it wasn’t such an extravagant way to spend your cockpit budget.
Only 61 of you (12% of respondents) favored the analog panel, with 24 readers citing the difficulty of the glass panel to learn as a possible pratfall.
*** THIS WEEK’S QUESTION ***
Meigs is dead. Long live Meigs.
This week, AVweb wants to know where you stand (in spring 2005) on the tearing down of Meigs Field.
Have an idea for a new QOTW? Send your suggestions toqotw@avweb.com.
NOTE:
This address is only for suggested QOTW questions, and not for QOTW answers or comments.
Usethis form to send QOTW comments to our AVmail Editor.
AVweb’s Question of the Week …
Key Takeaways:
- The majority of respondents (48%) expressed a clear preference for glass-panel displays, citing their superior reliability and situational awareness.
- A significant portion (39%) desired a hybrid cockpit combining both analog and glass-panel features, constrained primarily by budget.
- Only a small minority (12%) favored analog panels, with some participants noting the difficulty of learning glass panels as a drawback.
- The article also introduces a new poll, asking readers for their opinion (in spring 2005) on the tearing down of Meigs Field.
See a mistake? Contact us.
