Attitude indicators

[R&A Kyle]

A typical AI display is "inside out", ie the view is from inside the plane
looking out. Some (Russian) aircraft use the reverse display, ie a fixed
horizon and a moving airplane graphic. Does anyone know of work done to
measure the human factors benefits / penalties of these two approaches?

BTW a turn coordinator is "outside-in", yet located next to the AI. Is this
smart?
R Kyle

[Julian Scarfe]

"R&A Kyle" > wrote in message
...
> A typical AI display is "inside out", ie the view is from inside the plane
> looking out. Some (Russian) aircraft use the reverse display, ie a fixed
> horizon and a moving airplane graphic. Does anyone know of work done to
> measure the human factors benefits / penalties of these two approaches?

Roscoe put the case for a change in:
http://www.evergreenairlines.com/safety_new/html/articles_flight/flt0007.html

I'm not convinced about the thoroughness of the argument. He cites the
Stonecipher experiment as follows:

"An experiment at the University of Illinois showed that of 20 private
pilots without instrument flight training who were suddenly deprived of
outside visual reference, all lost directional control in an average of
three minutes. In trying to maintain altitude, they only tightened their
diving turns. Making such bank-control reversals while using a conventional
attitude indicator is primarily a general aviation problem."

I've posted on rec.aviation before about misconceptions of the Stonecipher
experiment. There was *no* AI available to the subjects in the experiment.

Julian Scarfe

[Robert Moore]

"R&A Kyle" wrote

> A typical AI display is "inside out", ie the view is from inside
> the plane looking out. Some (Russian) aircraft use the reverse
> display, ie a fixed horizon and a moving airplane graphic.

And then there are some Russian aircraft (YAK-52) that came from
The Ukraine with an "inside out" display, but one that moves in
the opposite direction vertically than we find in most normal AIs.
The "sky" is on the bottom half and the "ground" is on the upper
half of the sphere. This arrangement (fully gimbled??) had the
advantage of not tumbling when doing aerobatics.

Bob Moore

[Teacherjh]

>>
The "sky" is on the bottom half and the "ground" is on the upper
half of the sphere. This arrangement (fully gimbled??) had the
advantage of not tumbling when doing aerobatics.
<<

And how is this advantage conferred by the paint job?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[JimC]

Interesting point. I do remember when I first started flying I thought the
AI should work like the turn coordinator. It seemed more natural for me to
think of how the plane was doing relative to the horizon rather than how the
horizon was doing relative to the plane. It likely varies from one person
to the next, but I think I would have been happy had the AI been built, as
you say, "outside-in".

"R&A Kyle" > wrote in message
...
> A typical AI display is "inside out", ie the view is from inside the plane
> looking out. Some (Russian) aircraft use the reverse display, ie a fixed
> horizon and a moving airplane graphic. Does anyone know of work done to
> measure the human factors benefits / penalties of these two approaches?
>
> BTW a turn coordinator is "outside-in", yet located next to the AI. Is
this
> smart?
> R Kyle
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"R&A Kyle" > wrote in message ...
> A typical AI display is "inside out", ie the view is from inside the plane
> looking out. Some (Russian) aircraft use the reverse display, ie a fixed
> horizon and a moving airplane graphic. Does anyone know of work done to
> measure the human factors benefits / penalties of these two approaches?
>
This wasn't uncommon in early instrument work. As a matter of fact, the
Buddy Holly/Big Bopper/Richy Valens crash was blamed in part on the
fact that the aircraft had an Sperry Attitude Gyro (fixed horizon moving
airplane) where the pilot's experience had been on the more conventional
artificial horizon.

-Ron

[James M. Knox]

"JimC" > wrote in
:

> Interesting point. I do remember when I first started flying I
> thought the AI should work like the turn coordinator. It seemed more
> natural for me to think of how the plane was doing relative to the
> horizon rather than how the horizon was doing relative to the plane.
> It likely varies from one person to the next, but I think I would have
> been happy had the AI been built, as you say, "outside-in".

I'm with you. For some reason I have to FORCE myself to correctly
interpret the standard AI. It has *always* seemed backwards to me.

Logically, I don't know why. I am "fixed" in the plane and seeing the
background of the AI as a virtual "outside the window horizon" should be
perfectly natural... but for me it just doesn't work well. [And yes, I fly
a lot of hard IFR. <G>]

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[Manuel]

"R&A Kyle" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> A typical AI display is "inside out", ie the view is from inside the plane
> looking out. Some (Russian) aircraft use the reverse display, ie a fixed
> horizon and a moving airplane graphic. Does anyone know of work done to
> measure the human factors benefits / penalties of these two approaches?

Exactly this problem was one of the causes of the Crossair flight LX498
crash in Zurich on January 10th, 2000. It was a Saab 340 aircraft. The pilot
was moldavian and had lots of experience in russian airplanes with "reverse
AIs". By the way, russian planes partially also have reverse gyros.

For those who are interested, the investigation report (PDF) can be found
at:
http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/u1781_e
There's a discussion about the reverse AI at 1.16.5.1.1 (pages 59-62) and at
Annex 7 (page 134).

Besides that, it's really an interesting report, and if you want to invest a
couple of hours, read it.

-Manuel
PPL(A) SEP




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Roger Halstead]

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:46:01 +0100, "Manuel"
> wrote:

>"R&A Kyle" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>> A typical AI display is "inside out", ie the view is from inside the plane
>> looking out. Some (Russian) aircraft use the reverse display, ie a fixed

My Debonair had the reverse display as original.
I did have some photos up on the web, but eventaully took them down. I
updated the DG early on to the modern style.

If any one want's to see what they look like I can easily put them
back...if I can find the photos.

>> horizon and a moving airplane graphic. Does anyone know of work done to
>> measure the human factors benefits / penalties of these two approaches?

I didn't note a lot of difference and it was easy to get used to, BUT
I did not have to use it under difficult and/or stressful
circumstances where you tend to revert to what you are used to using.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

>
>Exactly this problem was one of the causes of the Crossair flight LX498
>crash in Zurich on January 10th, 2000. It was a Saab 340 aircraft. The pilot
>was moldavian and had lots of experience in russian airplanes with "reverse
>AIs". By the way, russian planes partially also have reverse gyros.

As did at least some of our early WWII fighters.


>
>For those who are interested, the investigation report (PDF) can be found
>at:
>http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/u1781_e
>There's a discussion about the reverse AI at 1.16.5.1.1 (pages 59-62) and at
>Annex 7 (page 134).
>
>Besides that, it's really an interesting report, and if you want to invest a
>couple of hours, read it.
>
>-Manuel
>PPL(A) SEP
>
>
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:18:46 -0600, "James M. Knox"
> wrote:

>"JimC" > wrote in
:
>
>> Interesting point. I do remember when I first started flying I
>> thought the AI should work like the turn coordinator. It seemed more
>> natural for me to think of how the plane was doing relative to the
>> horizon rather than how the horizon was doing relative to the plane.
>> It likely varies from one person to the next, but I think I would have
>> been happy had the AI been built, as you say, "outside-in".
>
>I'm with you. For some reason I have to FORCE myself to correctly
>interpret the standard AI. It has *always* seemed backwards to me.
>
>Logically, I don't know why. I am "fixed" in the plane and seeing the
>background of the AI as a virtual "outside the window horizon" should be
>perfectly natural... but for me it just doesn't work well. [And yes, I fly
>a lot of hard IFR. <G>]

Hey! Do I have a deal for you<:-))

I have one of the outside in AIs setting on the work bench. Fully
operational, but old. Looks to be in good shape. I took it out of the
Debonair early on.

The photos aren't the best, but they show the difference.
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/gauges.htm


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>James M. Knox
>TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
>1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
>Austin, Tx 78721
>-----------------------------------------------

[Roger Halstead]

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:40:56 GMT, Roger Halstead
> wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:46:01 +0100, "Manuel"
> wrote:
>
>>"R&A Kyle" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>>> A typical AI display is "inside out", ie the view is from inside the plane
>>> looking out. Some (Russian) aircraft use the reverse display, ie a fixed
>
>My Debonair had the reverse display as original.
>I did have some photos up on the web, but eventaully took them down. I
>updated the DG early on to the modern style.
>
>If any one want's to see what they look like I can easily put them
>back...if I can find the photos.

I updated the photos and uploaded the htm file so for any one that is
interested here are a couple of good shots of the old style, "outside
looking in" AI
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/gauges.htm

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

[JimC]

Thanks, Roger. Just looking at the old AI seem more "right" to me than the
current ones. I wonder if there was human perception factors research done
on the AI's to determine which depiction is most intuitive?

JimC

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:18:46 -0600, "James M. Knox"
> > wrote:
>
> >"JimC" > wrote in
> :
> >
> >> Interesting point. I do remember when I first started flying I
> >> thought the AI should work like the turn coordinator. It seemed more
> >> natural for me to think of how the plane was doing relative to the
> >> horizon rather than how the horizon was doing relative to the plane.
> >> It likely varies from one person to the next, but I think I would have
> >> been happy had the AI been built, as you say, "outside-in".
> >
> >I'm with you. For some reason I have to FORCE myself to correctly
> >interpret the standard AI. It has *always* seemed backwards to me.
> >
> >Logically, I don't know why. I am "fixed" in the plane and seeing the
> >background of the AI as a virtual "outside the window horizon" should be
> >perfectly natural... but for me it just doesn't work well. [And yes, I
fly
> >a lot of hard IFR. <G>]
>
> Hey! Do I have a deal for you<:-))
>
> I have one of the outside in AIs setting on the work bench. Fully
> operational, but old. Looks to be in good shape. I took it out of the
> Debonair early on.
>
> The photos aren't the best, but they show the difference.
> http://www.rogerhalstead.com/gauges.htm
>
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------
> >James M. Knox
> >TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
> >1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
> >Austin, Tx 78721
> >-----------------------------------------------
>

[Angus Duggan]

Roger Halstead > writes:
> The photos aren't the best, but they show the difference.
> http://www.rogerhalstead.com/gauges.htm

Roger,
The text on the web page says they show a "nose up attitude and
slight bank to the left". Surely you mean a "slight bank to the right"? If it
really is a slight bank to the left, I'm not surprised that there were
accidents changing to and from these gauges. I personally think that there is
no "right" answer for the inside/outside perception thing, but that it's like
track up/north up on maps. I find north up more intuitive, but I also find
the inside-out AI more intuitive than the outside-in turn coordinator.

a.

[Roger Halstead]

On 09 Dec 2003 23:39:51 -0800, Angus Duggan >
wrote:

>Roger Halstead > writes:
>> The photos aren't the best, but they show the difference.
>> http://www.rogerhalstead.com/gauges.htm
>
>Roger,
> The text on the web page says they show a "nose up attitude and
>slight bank to the left". Surely you mean a "slight bank to the right"? If it
>really is a slight bank to the left, I'm not surprised that there were
>accidents changing to and from these gauges. I personally think that there is
>no "right" answer for the inside/outside perception thing, but that it's like
>track up/north up on maps. I find north up more intuitive, but I also find
>the inside-out AI more intuitive than the outside-in turn coordinator.

Oops...I replaced the photos last night...bout 2:00 AM or so and
neither compared the position of the indicator with the old photos, or
bothered to read the text. <sheesh> That's what I get for staying up
so late.

Hmmm gotta go fix a page.

Thanks for bringing that up.

It was right for the previous photos, but the photos weren't real
sharp. (lots of reflections)

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
>
>a.

[Roger Halstead]

On 09 Dec 2003 23:39:51 -0800, Angus Duggan >
wrote:

>Roger Halstead > writes:
>> The photos aren't the best, but they show the difference.
>> http://www.rogerhalstead.com/gauges.htm

All fixed! I hope.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

>
>Roger,
> The text on the web page says they show a "nose up attitude and
>slight bank to the left". Surely you mean a "slight bank to the right"? If it
>really is a slight bank to the left, I'm not surprised that there were
>accidents changing to and from these gauges. I personally think that there is
>no "right" answer for the inside/outside perception thing, but that it's like
>track up/north up on maps. I find north up more intuitive, but I also find
>the inside-out AI more intuitive than the outside-in turn coordinator.
>
>a.

[Gig Giacona]

> >Roger Halstead > writes:
> >> The photos aren't the best, but they show the difference.
> >> http://www.rogerhalstead.com/gauges.htm


At first glance it gave me the impration that it was nose down with a right
bank. After looking at it for a moment I noticed my error. I'm going to
attibute the error to the fact that the face of the AI is convex.