Talk:Glass cockpit

message: Does anyone know why it's called a Glass Cockpit?
--Richy 19:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They originally were Cathode Ray Tubes (which have a glass face). --Midnightcomm 04:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the name?

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  glass cockpits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photograph request 

message: "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)
thread_title: Claims of fatalities

message: 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)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dead Link 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Dubious