Glass cockpit hard to read

[Arno]

Hello,

I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
"speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
same? Am I missing a particular technique?

Arno

[Don Tuite]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:21:27 -0000, Arno >
wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
>I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
>am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
>gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
>analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
>"speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
>midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>
I figure it's a conspiracy to make flying as much like a video game as
possible. Pretty soon, all the pilots over 40 will be eradicated in
mid-airs and CFITs arising from display fixation, and the young'uns
will transition to simulations and never notice that they aren't
actually flying anywhere -- which will be good, because they couldn't
have afforded the fuel anyway.

These newsgroups will live on, of course.

Don

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:21:27 -0000, Arno >
wrote in om>:

>Hello,
>
>I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
>I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
>am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
>gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
>analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
>"speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
>midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>
>Arno

Perhaps you should inform Avidyne of your less than satisfactory
experience with the ergonomics of their product. It would be
interesting to see their response. Who knows, you might be able to
motivate them to provide an 'analog gage' mode switch on future
versions.

http://www.avidyne.com/contact/contactus.shtm

E-Mail:

Avidyne Comm/Nav/FMS Group
420 N. Wickham Rd.
Melbourne, FL 32935
Phone: 321-751-8520
Fax: 321-751-8435

Avidyne Safety Systems Group
4800 Evanswood Drive
Columbus, OH 43229
Technical Support Phone: 800-877-0048
Technical Support Fax: 614-885-8307

[Mxsmanic]

Arno writes:

> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
> "speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
> same? Am I missing a particular technique?

It is a matter of habit and personal preference.

[Mxsmanic]

Don Tuite writes:

> I figure it's a conspiracy to make flying as much like a video game as
> possible.

I suppose you are making a joke, but there may be considerable truth in what
you say.

As computers enter many domains in which they had not previously been used,
the "computer mindset" also tends to pollute those domains, since the ergonomy
of computer software is often a function of the preferences of the developers
who build it. I note that glass cockpits bear a suspicious resemblance to
PC-based interfaces, a likely sign that the developers knew a lot more about
PCs than they did about cockpit designs. The glass cockpits drift towards an
interface that looks like something you'd see on a laptop computer, rather
than something you'd see in a traditional cockpit. I don't think this is a
good thing. Indeed, it is one of my objections to glass cockpits, especially
the highly integrated kind often installed in small aircraft (think G1000).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Arno writes:
>
>> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
>> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
>> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
>> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
>> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
>> "speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
>> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>
> It is a matter of habit and personal preference.
>

No, it isn't, fjukkwit.



This ios almost the dumbest thng you've ever said.

bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Don Tuite writes:
>
>> I figure it's a conspiracy to make flying as much like a video game
>> as possible.
>
> I suppose you are making a joke, but there may be considerable truth
> in what you say.
>
> As computers enter many domains in which they had not previously been
> used, the "computer mindset" also tends to pollute those domains,
> since the ergonomy of computer software is often a function of the
> preferences of the developers who build it. I note that glass
> cockpits bear a suspicious resemblance to PC-based interfaces, a
> likely sign that the developers knew a lot more about PCs than they
> did about cockpit designs. The glass cockpits drift towards an
> interface that looks like something you'd see on a laptop computer,
> rather than something you'd see in a traditional cockpit. I don't
> think this is a good thing. Indeed, it is one of my objections to
> glass cockpits, especially the highly integrated kind often installed
> in small aircraft (think G1000).
>

How would you know?

You don't fly and you never will.

bertie

[Phil]

On Oct 6, 10:21 am, Arno > wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
> "speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>
> Arno

I am a fellow computer geek, and a student pilot. I usually fly a
plane with steam gauges, but a couple of times now I have flown with
digital displays. Like you, I found it a little hard to adjust to the
digital displays. The digital displays I was using presented altitude
and tachometer values simply as numbers. The analog displays I am
used to present these values as positions on a dial, showing the
current value in its context of a spectrum of values. With the analog
displays, I am used to adjusting the position of the pointer. With
the digital display, I need to simply set the correct numerical
value. It's a little mental adjustment, and given that I am a newbie
to all this it is an extra distraction.

But, I do think that it is mostly a matter of what you are used to.
If you started out working with a digital display, and had to switch
to a steam gauge, I think it would be just as much of an adjustment.
I think that the human brain is a pretty flexible instrument, and I
suspect it wouldn't take long to get used to setting a numerical value
rather than the position of a needle on a dial. Both are valid
methods of presenting the information. Either way, it is simply a
feedback mechanism you use to make sure the airplane is doing what it
should.

Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil > wrote in news:1191696116.820241.83540@
19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 6, 10:21 am, Arno > wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
>> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say
I
>> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
>> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading
an
>> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
>> "speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
>> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>>
>> Arno
>
> I am a fellow computer geek, and a student pilot. I usually fly a
> plane with steam gauges, but a couple of times now I have flown with
> digital displays. Like you, I found it a little hard to adjust to the
> digital displays. The digital displays I was using presented altitude
> and tachometer values simply as numbers. The analog displays I am
> used to present these values as positions on a dial, showing the
> current value in its context of a spectrum of values. With the analog
> displays, I am used to adjusting the position of the pointer. With
> the digital display, I need to simply set the correct numerical
> value. It's a little mental adjustment, and given that I am a newbie
> to all this it is an extra distraction.
>
> But, I do think that it is mostly a matter of what you are used to.



Flying is a right hand brain activity. At least the handling portion is.
The right hand side of the brain dosn't do abstractions like numbers, at
least not until the left hand side (which can't fly worth a ****) sends
it over to the right side in a readily digestable form which enables the
right brain to chew it into a picture.

An analogue display cuts the left hand side out of the loop and enables
the calcualtion rate to increase the right sides "frame rate" so that
corrections can be made more frequently thus enabling the pilot to fly
the airplane more smooothly and with more authority.
Caorse rule of thumb math can be laid over this for descent angles,
interceptin angles and wo on, but generally, the fewer numbers involved,
the better.
People who prefer the numbers usualy don't fly very well at all.


You don't do trig while you're shooting pool and expect to win the game.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 9:21 am, Arno > wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
> "speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>
> Arno

You'll get used to it... there is a transition time to go from round
dial to tapes, but once you get used to tapes you will find that they
do have certain advantages. I worked on the 777 EFIS, which used the
tape format, and after several hours in the 777 simulator, the tapes
became as easy to read at a glance as the round dials. It just takes
conditioning your mind to be able to rapidly scan them, and being able
to pick up trend information from the tape motion instead of needle
motion. At least that was my experience.

A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
adapt to them.

Dean

[Thomas Borchert]

Arno,

> Does anyone feel the
> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>

Many reviewers have mentioned this. It seems to be mostly a mater of
training. Also, setting the respective bugs to the desired value seems
to help most pilots.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> You don't do trig while you're shooting pool and expect to win the game.

You're right, I do geometry. :-))

[john smith[_2_]]

In article om>,
wrote:

> A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
> with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
> adapt to them.

So do the numbers get bigger or smaller as the tape move down?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

john smith > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> You don't do trig while you're shooting pool and expect to win the
>> game.
>
> You're right, I do geometry. :-))
>



Nobody can do geometry properly with the required alchohol load to play
pool properly

Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 6, 9:21 am, Arno > wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
>> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
>> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
>> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
>> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
>> "speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
>> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>>
>> Arno
>
> You'll get used to it... there is a transition time to go from round
> dial to tapes, but once you get used to tapes you will find that they
> do have certain advantages. I worked on the 777 EFIS, which used the
> tape format, and after several hours in the 777 simulator, the tapes
> became as easy to read at a glance as the round dials. It just takes
> conditioning your mind to be able to rapidly scan them, and being able
> to pick up trend information from the tape motion instead of needle
> motion. At least that was my experience.
>
> A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
> with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
> adapt to them.
>
> Dean
>
I have never seen the system for the 777, but I did get a look at the low
end equipment at the LSA Expo in Sebring Florida, and felt that what I saw
was pure crap!

It is certainly possible to make a tape motion system that works well, and I
have seen some "physical" versions that I liked when I was an avionics tech
twenty years ago. However, those have a moving needle which moved in
opposition to the moving tape and at a slower rate than the tape. The
result was that the needle gave the coarse indication, at a glance, and the
tape gave the precise measurement when required--and, in the case of a
higher flying aircraft which would require a three needle altimeter, may
have been more intuitive to read.

However, on the implementations that I have seen, the representations of
needles were fixed and the numbers moved on a virtual card or tape. In my
opinion, they were egregeous!

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Phil > wrote in news:1191696116.820241.83540@
> 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Oct 6, 10:21 am, Arno > wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
>>> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say
> I
>>> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>>> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
>>> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading
> an
>>> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
>>> "speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
>>> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>>> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>>> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>>>
>>> Arno
>>
>> I am a fellow computer geek, and a student pilot. I usually fly a
>> plane with steam gauges, but a couple of times now I have flown with
>> digital displays. Like you, I found it a little hard to adjust to the
>> digital displays. The digital displays I was using presented altitude
>> and tachometer values simply as numbers. The analog displays I am
>> used to present these values as positions on a dial, showing the
>> current value in its context of a spectrum of values. With the analog
>> displays, I am used to adjusting the position of the pointer. With
>> the digital display, I need to simply set the correct numerical
>> value. It's a little mental adjustment, and given that I am a newbie
>> to all this it is an extra distraction.
>>
>> But, I do think that it is mostly a matter of what you are used to.
>
>
>
> Flying is a right hand brain activity. At least the handling portion is.
> The right hand side of the brain dosn't do abstractions like numbers, at
> least not until the left hand side (which can't fly worth a ****) sends
> it over to the right side in a readily digestable form which enables the
> right brain to chew it into a picture.
>
> An analogue display cuts the left hand side out of the loop and enables
> the calcualtion rate to increase the right sides "frame rate" so that
> corrections can be made more frequently thus enabling the pilot to fly
> the airplane more smooothly and with more authority.
> Caorse rule of thumb math can be laid over this for descent angles,
> interceptin angles and wo on, but generally, the fewer numbers involved,
> the better.
> People who prefer the numbers usualy don't fly very well at all.
>
>
> You don't do trig while you're shooting pool and expect to win the game.
>
>
> Bertie

Very well said!

Peter

[Arno]

> A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
> with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
> adapt to them.
>

That's interesting. Do you have any reference of research comparing
various display methods? Tapes for speed and altitude in today's
cockpits are ubiquitous of course. So far I thought it was a case of
someone starting it and others just copying it.

Arno

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in news:x1SNi.1432$aa.376
@bignews1.bellsouth.net:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Phil > wrote in news:1191696116.820241.83540@
>> 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Oct 6, 10:21 am, Arno > wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology.
But
>>>> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must
say
>> I
>>>> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>>>> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with
regular
>>>> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading
>> an
>>>> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture,
like
>>>> "speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes
past
>>>> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>>>> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>>>> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>>>>
>>>> Arno
>>>
>>> I am a fellow computer geek, and a student pilot. I usually fly a
>>> plane with steam gauges, but a couple of times now I have flown with
>>> digital displays. Like you, I found it a little hard to adjust to
the
>>> digital displays. The digital displays I was using presented
altitude
>>> and tachometer values simply as numbers. The analog displays I am
>>> used to present these values as positions on a dial, showing the
>>> current value in its context of a spectrum of values. With the
analog
>>> displays, I am used to adjusting the position of the pointer. With
>>> the digital display, I need to simply set the correct numerical
>>> value. It's a little mental adjustment, and given that I am a
newbie
>>> to all this it is an extra distraction.
>>>
>>> But, I do think that it is mostly a matter of what you are used to.
>>
>>
>>
>> Flying is a right hand brain activity. At least the handling portion
is.
>> The right hand side of the brain dosn't do abstractions like numbers,
at
>> least not until the left hand side (which can't fly worth a ****)
sends
>> it over to the right side in a readily digestable form which enables
the
>> right brain to chew it into a picture.
>>
>> An analogue display cuts the left hand side out of the loop and
enables
>> the calcualtion rate to increase the right sides "frame rate" so that
>> corrections can be made more frequently thus enabling the pilot to
fly
>> the airplane more smooothly and with more authority.
>> Caorse rule of thumb math can be laid over this for descent angles,
>> interceptin angles and wo on, but generally, the fewer numbers
involved,
>> the better.
>> People who prefer the numbers usualy don't fly very well at all.
>>
>>
>> You don't do trig while you're shooting pool and expect to win the
game.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Very well said!


Thenkew

Bertie
>
>
>
>

[Arno]

Dean,

I just noticed something interesting, looking at pictures of recent
Boeing and Airbus PFDs. For altitude, they are both pretty much the
same, but for the speed tape, Airbus does not have a big number at the
center of the tape but instead the number on top of the tape and just
a thin line at the center. After my experience today I like the Airbus
better because it is less conducive to reading the numbers rather than
"get the picture":

Airbus A340:

http://simflight.nl/users/reviews/CLS/A340-600/Screenshots/PFD.jpg

Boeing 777:

http://www.meriweather.com/777/fwd/pfd.html

Arno

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
....
>
> You'll get used to it... there is a transition time to go from round
> dial to tapes, but once you get used to tapes you will find that they
> do have certain advantages. I worked on the 777 EFIS, which used the
> tape format, and after several hours in the 777 simulator, the tapes
> became as easy to read at a glance as the round dials. It just takes
> conditioning your mind to be able to rapidly scan them, and being able
> to pick up trend information from the tape motion instead of needle
> motion. At least that was my experience.
>
> A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
> with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
> adapt to them.
>
> Dean
>

Hey Dean, the tape systems I've seen have the scale fixed on the display and
the tape that moves up and down the scale appropriately. That is not how the
Garmin system works from what I've seen. The G1000 in the local 182 actually
moves the scale in relation to a fixed pointer that is mid-scale on the
display, so you have to read numbers relative to a pointer instead of
judging a tape marker relative to a fixed scale. This is much more difficult
than the old fixed scale displays, but I don't see how they could cram as
much on the screen as they do if they still used fixed scale depictions.
Those old instruments used the barberpole concept very well and went right
along with the round gages for system monitoring where we would rotate the
gauges in the panel such that "normal" had all needles pointing the same
direction; no interpretation needed unless one of the needles wasn't
pointing like the rest.

In some ways technology has made the panel much less intuitive and more time
consuming. Think about traffic signals - Red means stop, but we could have
just as easily put up a digital display that said "Cross traffic beginning".
Which would be easier for the driver to interpret most quickly?



--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

To all:

Please be aware the Anthony Atkielski (mxsmanic) is not a pilot, and has
never held an aviation medical. In fact he has never even taken a lesson,
let alone fly in a small plane.

He certainly has never flown with or operated a G-1000 or anything remotely
similar.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

To all:

Please be aware the Anthony Atkielski (mxsmanic) is not a pilot, and has
never held an aviation medical. In fact he has never even taken a lesson,
let alone fly in a small plane.

He certainly has never flown with or operated a G-1000 or anything remotely
similar.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

> An analogue display cuts the left hand side out of the loop and enables
> the calcualtion rate to increase the right sides "frame rate" so that
> corrections can be made more frequently thus enabling the pilot to fly
> the airplane more smooothly and with more authority.
> Caorse rule of thumb math can be laid over this for descent angles,
> interceptin angles and wo on, but generally, the fewer numbers involved,
> the better.
> People who prefer the numbers usualy don't fly very well at all.


Bless you, my boy.

I thought the reason I hated the tapes was that I'm just an old fogie. Now I
know it's because I'm a natural!

Most gratifying news.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>> An analogue display cuts the left hand side out of the loop and
>> enables the calcualtion rate to increase the right sides "frame rate"
>> so that corrections can be made more frequently thus enabling the
>> pilot to fly the airplane more smooothly and with more authority.
>> Caorse rule of thumb math can be laid over this for descent angles,
>> interceptin angles and wo on, but generally, the fewer numbers
>> involved, the better.
>> People who prefer the numbers usualy don't fly very well at all.
>
>
> Bless you, my boy.
>
> I thought the reason I hated the tapes was that I'm just an old fogie.
> Now I know it's because I'm a natural!
>

'xactly.

've had a speed tape in front of me for years now and I still look right
past it to the ASI. It does have a useful function in that it flashes if I
get more than a few knots away from bug speed whilst hand flying, but
intuitive use of the ASI needle is al I have found I'd ever need.

> Most gratifying news.
>
>

That's why the name Berite the Bunyip is a byword for service.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 2:35 pm, Arno > wrote:
> Dean,
>
> I just noticed something interesting, looking at pictures of recent
> Boeing and Airbus PFDs. For altitude, they are both pretty much the
> same, but for the speed tape, Airbus does not have a big number at the
> center of the tape but instead the number on top of the tape and just
> a thin line at the center. After my experience today I like the Airbus
> better because it is less conducive to reading the numbers rather than
> "get the picture":
>
> Airbus A340:
>
> http://simflight.nl/users/reviews/CLS/A340-600/Screenshots/PFD.jpg
>
> Boeing 777:
>
> http://www.meriweather.com/777/fwd/pfd.html
>
> Arno

Take a look at the speed tape on the 777. The tape itself gives you
the course rate of change, while the window gives you the fine
resolution changes with the 1's place on the airspace as a sliding
digit. The Airbus doesn't give you that.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Flying is a right hand brain activity. At least the handling portion is.
> The right hand side of the brain dosn't do abstractions like numbers, at
> least not until the left hand side (which can't fly worth a ****) sends
> it over to the right side in a readily digestable form which enables the
> right brain to chew it into a picture.
>
> An analogue display cuts the left hand side out of the loop and enables
> the calcualtion rate to increase the right sides "frame rate" so that
> corrections can be made more frequently thus enabling the pilot to fly
> the airplane more smooothly and with more authority.

Most of this is pure speculation, although it is interesting.

> People who prefer the numbers usualy don't fly very well at all.

Unless, of course, they are flying an airliner in which systems are more
important than hand-flying. In that case, they may be a lot better at it.

> You don't do trig while you're shooting pool and expect to win the game.

Some people do (cf. card counters).

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
> with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
> adapt to them.

True for the avionics on large airliners, no doubt, but was the same effort
put into the glass cockpits one finds on small aircraft? It sure doesn't look
like it sometimes.

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> john smith > wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >,
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>> You don't do trig while you're shooting pool and expect to win the
>>> game.
>>
>> You're right, I do geometry. :-))
>
> Nobody can do geometry properly with the required alchohol load to play
> pool properly

I consider it well played if I manage to hit the cue ball with the cue
stick. And that's sometimes with no alcohol load. I then pray (a dubious
thing for an atheist to do) for fortuitous stochastic scattering to align
with my prediction.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 6:10 pm, wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2:35 pm, Arno > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dean,
>
> > I just noticed something interesting, looking at pictures of recent
> > Boeing and Airbus PFDs. For altitude, they are both pretty much the
> > same, but for the speed tape, Airbus does not have a big number at the
> > center of the tape but instead the number on top of the tape and just
> > a thin line at the center. After my experience today I like the Airbus
> > better because it is less conducive to reading the numbers rather than
> > "get the picture":
>
> > Airbus A340:
>
> >http://simflight.nl/users/reviews/CLS/A340-600/Screenshots/PFD.jpg
>
> > Boeing 777:
>
> >http://www.meriweather.com/777/fwd/pfd.html
>
> > Arno
>
> Take a look at the speed tape on the 777. The tape itself gives you
> the course rate of change, while the window gives you the fine
> resolution changes with the 1's place on the airspace as a sliding
> digit. The Airbus doesn't give you that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oops, typo, make that "coarse rate of change"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Flying is a right hand brain activity. At least the handling portion
>> is. The right hand side of the brain dosn't do abstractions like
>> numbers, at least not until the left hand side (which can't fly worth
>> a ****) sends it over to the right side in a readily digestable form
>> which enables the right brain to chew it into a picture.
>>
>> An analogue display cuts the left hand side out of the loop and
>> enables the calcualtion rate to increase the right sides "frame rate"
>> so that corrections can be made more frequently thus enabling the
>> pilot to fly the airplane more smooothly and with more authority.
>
> Most of this is pure speculation, although it is interesting.
>

No it isn't. I do it, you don;t


>> People who prefer the numbers usualy don't fly very well at all.
>
> Unless, of course, they are flying an airliner in which systems are
> more important than hand-flying. In that case, they may be a lot
> better at it.
>

It was an airliner I was talking about Fjukktard.

I
>> You don't do trig while you're shooting pool and expect to win the
>> game.
>
> Some people do (cf. card counters).
>
Card counters use trig to play pool , do they?

You are the dumbest fjukkwit I've ever seen.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
>> with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
>> adapt to them.
>
> True for the avionics on large airliners, no doubt, but was the same
> effort put into the glass cockpits one finds on small aircraft? It
> sure doesn't look like it sometimes.
>

How would you know?

you don't fly them and you never will.

Bertie

[The Visitor[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Flying is a right hand brain activity. At least the handling portion is.
> The right hand side of the brain dosn't do abstractions like numbers, at
> least not until the left hand side (which can't fly worth a ****) sends
> it over to the right side in a readily digestable form which enables the
> right brain to chew it into a picture.


You invented this?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

The Visitor > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Flying is a right hand brain activity. At least the handling portion
>> is. The right hand side of the brain dosn't do abstractions like
>> numbers, at least not until the left hand side (which can't fly worth
>> a ****) sends it over to the right side in a readily digestable form
>> which enables the right brain to chew it into a picture.
>
>
> You invented this?
>
>

What, the brain?

Not really. I've been nown to rewire them though.

Bertie

[Phil]

On Oct 6, 1:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Phil > wrote in news:1191696116.820241.83540@
> 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 10:21 am, Arno > wrote:
> >> Hello,
>
> >> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
> >> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say
> I
> >> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
> >> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
> >> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading
> an
> >> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
> >> "speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
> >> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
> >> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
> >> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>
> >> Arno
>
> > I am a fellow computer geek, and a student pilot. I usually fly a
> > plane with steam gauges, but a couple of times now I have flown with
> > digital displays. Like you, I found it a little hard to adjust to the
> > digital displays. The digital displays I was using presented altitude
> > and tachometer values simply as numbers. The analog displays I am
> > used to present these values as positions on a dial, showing the
> > current value in its context of a spectrum of values. With the analog
> > displays, I am used to adjusting the position of the pointer. With
> > the digital display, I need to simply set the correct numerical
> > value. It's a little mental adjustment, and given that I am a newbie
> > to all this it is an extra distraction.
>
> > But, I do think that it is mostly a matter of what you are used to.
>
> Flying is a right hand brain activity. At least the handling portion is.
> The right hand side of the brain dosn't do abstractions like numbers, at
> least not until the left hand side (which can't fly worth a ****) sends
> it over to the right side in a readily digestable form which enables the
> right brain to chew it into a picture.
>
> An analogue display cuts the left hand side out of the loop and enables
> the calcualtion rate to increase the right sides "frame rate" so that
> corrections can be made more frequently thus enabling the pilot to fly
> the airplane more smooothly and with more authority.
> Caorse rule of thumb math can be laid over this for descent angles,
> interceptin angles and wo on, but generally, the fewer numbers involved,
> the better.
> People who prefer the numbers usualy don't fly very well at all.
>
> You don't do trig while you're shooting pool and expect to win the game.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As I understand it, the whole right-brain left-brain thing has pretty
much been discredited. The more recent research shows that any
complex task engages both sides of the brain. I don't think there
were too many neuroscientists who ever embraced the idea that one side
does "art" and the other side does "math" anyway.

I think the biggest difference between steam gauges and digital
displays is that steam gauges give you a value in context of a
spectrum of values. When you look at a analog tachometer, you can see
the where the needle is compared to the minimum and maximum values.
If you are trying to set 75% power, it might be useful to have the
information presented that way, because you can see where 3/4 of the
range is. Same with airspeed. You can see how close you are to the
red arc, where you are in the green arc, etc.

On the other hand, why would you want to see altitude displayed with
needles? If I want to fly at a specific altitude, I am looking for a
number, not a position in a range. I think the traditional altimeter
was made the way it was because it was the easiest way to get a
mechanical instrument to display the information that way, not because
it was the easiest way to digest the information.

Ideally, every instrument should be designed to convey the appropriate
information in a way that is conducive to how that information is
going to be used. If you just need a value, then a digital display of
a number make sense. If you need to have a sense of where you are
relative to minimum and maximum, then a display showing relative
position in a range should be used. The nice thing about a
computerized display is it can be set up to display the information
either way.

Phil

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Oct 7, 12:41 am, Phil > wrote:
>
> As I understand it, the whole right-brain left-brain thing has pretty
> much been discredited. The more recent research shows that any
> complex task engages both sides of the brain. I don't think there
> were too many neuroscientists who ever embraced the idea that one side
> does "art" and the other side does "math" anyway.
>
> I think the biggest difference between steam gauges and digital
> displays is that steam gauges give you a value in context of a
> spectrum of values. When you look at a analog tachometer, you can see
> the where the needle is compared to the minimum and maximum values.
> If you are trying to set 75% power, it might be useful to have the
> information presented that way, because you can see where 3/4 of the
> range is. Same with airspeed. You can see how close you are to the
> red arc, where you are in the green arc, etc.
>
> On the other hand, why would you want to see altitude displayed with
> needles? If I want to fly at a specific altitude, I am looking for a
> number, not a position in a range. I think the traditional altimeter
> was made the way it was because it was the easiest way to get a
> mechanical instrument to display the information that way, not because
> it was the easiest way to digest the information.
>
> Ideally, every instrument should be designed to convey the appropriate
> information in a way that is conducive to how that information is
> going to be used. If you just need a value, then a digital display of
> a number make sense. If you need to have a sense of where you are
> relative to minimum and maximum, then a display showing relative
> position in a range should be used. The nice thing about a
> computerized display is it can be set up to display the information
> either way.
>
> Phil- Hide quoted text -
>


I agree with this statement. A needle is a graphical display of a
numerical value. A picture is worth a lot more than just the number.
By presenting just the numeric value you are taking away a lot of
useful information about neighboring values. Its like a GPS that shows
the lat-lon values instead of a moving map. The only exception I can
think of is the altimeter and VSI reading, where a numeric display may
be best.

I once saw a car that had a numeric RPM display. During accelerations
all digits were moving so fast you could not make anything from it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil > wrote in news:1191732077.235895.295410
@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 6, 1:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Phil > wrote in news:1191696116.820241.83540@
>> 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 6, 10:21 am, Arno > wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>>
>> >> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
>> >> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say
>> I
>> >> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>> >> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
>> >> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading
>> an
>> >> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
>> >> "speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
>> >> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>> >> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>> >> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>>
>> >> Arno
>>
>> > I am a fellow computer geek, and a student pilot. I usually fly a
>> > plane with steam gauges, but a couple of times now I have flown with
>> > digital displays. Like you, I found it a little hard to adjust to the
>> > digital displays. The digital displays I was using presented altitude
>> > and tachometer values simply as numbers. The analog displays I am
>> > used to present these values as positions on a dial, showing the
>> > current value in its context of a spectrum of values. With the analog
>> > displays, I am used to adjusting the position of the pointer. With
>> > the digital display, I need to simply set the correct numerical
>> > value. It's a little mental adjustment, and given that I am a newbie
>> > to all this it is an extra distraction.
>>
>> > But, I do think that it is mostly a matter of what you are used to.
>>
>> Flying is a right hand brain activity. At least the handling portion is.
>> The right hand side of the brain dosn't do abstractions like numbers, at
>> least not until the left hand side (which can't fly worth a ****) sends
>> it over to the right side in a readily digestable form which enables the
>> right brain to chew it into a picture.
>>
>> An analogue display cuts the left hand side out of the loop and enables
>> the calcualtion rate to increase the right sides "frame rate" so that
>> corrections can be made more frequently thus enabling the pilot to fly
>> the airplane more smooothly and with more authority.
>> Caorse rule of thumb math can be laid over this for descent angles,
>> interceptin angles and wo on, but generally, the fewer numbers involved,
>> the better.
>> People who prefer the numbers usualy don't fly very well at all.
>>
>> You don't do trig while you're shooting pool and expect to win the game.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> As I understand it, the whole right-brain left-brain thing has pretty
> much been discredited. The more recent research shows that any
> complex task engages both sides of the brain. I don't think there
> were too many neuroscientists who ever embraced the idea that one side
> does "art" and the other side does "math" anyway.
>


Well, it's a simplification, but I have had cause to chat with some
neurosurgeons in the recent past over a protracted period and they still
seem to think it's pretty much still the way it works.

anyone who has ever known a stroke victim know that if the left side gets
zapped they can lose the power of speech altogether, for instance.

(no, my own brain was not invovlved)


Found this anyway http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A659874

> I think the biggest difference between steam gauges and digital
> displays is that steam gauges give you a value in context of a
> spectrum of values. When you look at a analog tachometer, you can see
> the where the needle is compared to the minimum and maximum values.
> If you are trying to set 75% power, it might be useful to have the
> information presented that way, because you can see where 3/4 of the
> range is. Same with airspeed. You can see how close you are to the
> red arc, where you are in the green arc, etc.


Yes, I agree and is pretty much what I was trying to say. Your brain picks
this up in the same language it's doing the flying job in. You don't have
to convert a bunch of numbers to a mental picture of what's going on, The
rate the needles move, their angle, the way they quiver and dance as they
pick up what's going on, all give subtle information in a form that's easy
to digest
>
> On the other hand, why would you want to see altitude displayed with
> needles? If I want to fly at a specific altitude, I am looking for a
> number, not a position in a range. I think the traditional altimeter
> was made the way it was because it was the easiest way to get a
> mechanical instrument to display the information that way, not because
> it was the easiest way to digest the information.

Yeah, another god point. trad altimiters aren't great that way, but you do
get used to them.
Sill, if you have a tape only, you have to read the numbers...

>
> Ideally, every instrument should be designed to convey the appropriate
> information in a way that is conducive to how that information is
> going to be used. If you just need a value, then a digital display of
> a number make sense. If you need to have a sense of where you are
> relative to minimum and maximum, then a display showing relative
> position in a range should be used. The nice thing about a
> computerized display is it can be set up to display the information
> either way.
>

Well, not in the things I fly! They pretty much give you what has been
decided for you.

One thing I positivley loath on some modern EFIS displays is the "track
up" option on the nav screen. For those not fmailiar, basicallly the DG
function puts our actual ground track on the lubber line and has a bug to
indicate your heading. This is the reverse of the traditional display where
the heading is on the lubber line and if you have some sort of RNAV
comouter giving info your track is displayed by a bug. It's OK when you are
motoring along enroute, but if you arent used to it, shooting an approach
is a nightmare. Adherents of track up say that it is actually easier, but
it isn't if you are used to the old way. doing an NDB appraoch, for
instance, all you need to do is put the track on the lubber line and the
ADF needle should stay glued to the inbound track, but if you have to
constantly remind yourself to do the oppostie of what you are used to it
can be an absolute nightmare to do by hand. If we did NDB appraoches every
day of the week it wouldn't be a problem, but I've done one in anger in the
last five years and the rest are all in the sim.
Even weirder, the newer airbusses use a speed reference system that uses
groundspeed on the approach. so, you set your Vref and the airplane
automatically raises it to accomodate a headwind by flying a constant
ground speed. (or advising you to fly faster by pushing the speed bug up)
It's simple, but interferes with the pilot's direct communications with the
wing. I suppose I'm trying to say it's translating for you and somethng is
always lost in the translation..

But don't mind me, I wish the 75 had flying wires so I could hear them sing
to me..


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> I once saw a car that had a numeric RPM display. During accelerations
> all digits were moving so fast you could not make anything from it.

During accelerations you should be looking out the window.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Andrew Sarangan writes:
>
>> I once saw a car that had a numeric RPM display. During accelerations
>> all digits were moving so fast you could not make anything from it.
>
> During accelerations you should be looking out the window.
>



How would you know? How fast does the chair in your bedroon go, fjukkwit?


bertie

[Union Thug]

On Oct 6, 9:41 pm, Phil > wrote:

>
>
> I think the biggest difference between steam gauges and digital
> displays is that steam gauges give you a value in context of a
> spectrum of values. When you look at a analog tachometer, you can see
> the where the needle is compared to the minimum and maximum values.
> If you are trying to set 75% power, it might be useful to have the
> information presented that way, because you can see where 3/4 of the
> range is. Same with airspeed. You can see how close you are to the
> red arc, where you are in the green arc, etc.

Phil,
The biggest difference between steam and digital is the amount of
information you can display is much greater with digital. Take the
speed tape for example, you get minimum and maximum values just like
steam, but you can also get flap speeds, manuvering speeds for each
flap setting, trend indications, trend vectoring, etc. You can display
much more information on a modern glass PFD and ND than you ever could
on an old school panel. This gives you SA at a glance where the old
school panel would have you reading and having to interprete several
different instruments. Some manufacturers are better than others, but
once you are used to these glass systems, you will find the hardest
thing is to fly an old school panel again.
K Baum

[Phil]

On Oct 7, 4:55 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Phil > wrote in news:1191732077.235895.295410
> @w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

>

> > Ideally, every instrument should be designed to convey the appropriate
> > information in a way that is conducive to how that information is
> > going to be used. If you just need a value, then a digital display of
> > a number make sense. If you need to have a sense of where you are
> > relative to minimum and maximum, then a display showing relative
> > position in a range should be used. The nice thing about a
> > computerized display is it can be set up to display the information
> > either way.
>
> Well, not in the things I fly! They pretty much give you what has been
> decided for you.
>

Sorry, I wasn't very clear there. What I meant was the designer of
the computer display can program the pixels to convey the information
either way. The display can show simply a number, or it can show a
graphical representation of a range of values with a pointer to show
the current position in the range. Right now you are stuck with
whatever the designer chose for you, but as EFIS becomes more common
and more sophisticated, it is very possible that it will be re-
configurable by the pilot. I doubt that it will ever be completely
flexible where you can get it to display any way you want, but I can
imagine that there might be a selection of four or five different ways
to display an instrument, and you can pick which one you like.

> One thing I positivley loath on some modern EFIS displays is the "track
> up" option on the nav screen. For those not fmailiar, basicallly the DG
> function puts our actual ground track on the lubber line and has a bug to
> indicate your heading. This is the reverse of the traditional display where
> the heading is on the lubber line and if you have some sort of RNAV
> comouter giving info your track is displayed by a bug. It's OK when you are
> motoring along enroute, but if you arent used to it, shooting an approach
> is a nightmare. Adherents of track up say that it is actually easier, but
> it isn't if you are used to the old way. doing an NDB appraoch, for
> instance, all you need to do is put the track on the lubber line and the
> ADF needle should stay glued to the inbound track, but if you have to
> constantly remind yourself to do the oppostie of what you are used to it
> can be an absolute nightmare to do by hand. If we did NDB appraoches every
> day of the week it wouldn't be a problem, but I've done one in anger in the
> last five years and the rest are all in the sim.

That makes me wonder how the designers of EFIS displays choose their
designs. Are the designs based on research or are they just the
personal preferences of the designer? Hopefully there is some kind of
objective research used to choose a display pattern that is easiest to
use. Of course, that raises the whole issue of testing displays. Who
do you get to test them? If you use pilots who have been flying
analog gauges for years, you are probably going to find that they want
EFIS displays that are like the analog instruments. But those
displays may not actually be the optimal way for the brain to digest
the information. It makes me think about the keyboard I am using to
type this. It was designed back in the days of manual typewriters.
Because manual typewriters tended to jam if you tried to type too
fast, the keyboard was arranged to slow the typist down. So we are
all using a keyboard that forces us to type more slowly than we could
with an optimal keyboard. The Dvorak keyboard was designed to
eliminate this problem. But hardly anyone uses it because we have all
been taught to type on the old QWERTY keyboard.

> Even weirder, the newer airbusses use a speed reference system that uses
> groundspeed on the approach. so, you set your Vref and the airplane
> automatically raises it to accomodate a headwind by flying a constant
> ground speed. (or advising you to fly faster by pushing the speed bug up)
> It's simple, but interferes with the pilot's direct communications with the
> wing. I suppose I'm trying to say it's translating for you and somethng is
> always lost in the translation..
>

I understand what you are saying. In the software world, designers
try to make each new release more "helpful" than the last. Sometimes
this is good, but mostly I just find it annoying. The software tries
to guess what you intend to do, and do it for you. If it guesses
right, that's fine. But it seems like it mostly guesses wrong, and
then you just have to un-do what it did. That's not an improvement.
I wish they would put more time into designing simple, intuitive user
interfaces so I can more easily tell the program what I want it to
do. That way the program doesn't have to guess.

> But don't mind me, I wish the 75 had flying wires so I could hear them sing
> to me..

Maybe some EFIS designer can set up the option to have the airspeed
converted to a flying wire sound and played in your headset. :-)

Phil

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> How would you know?

I'm a licensed and very experienced driver with some extra training. That
kind of credential seems to impress pilots with respect to airlines, so it
should work the same magic for cars ... right?

[Mxsmanic]

Phil writes:

> That makes me wonder how the designers of EFIS displays choose their
> designs. Are the designs based on research or are they just the
> personal preferences of the designer?

My guess is that the expensive commercial stuff in airliners is the product of
fairly extensive studies into ergonomy, whereas the inexpensive stuff sold for
small aircraft has not been subjected to that kind of study, since it's not
required for certification and it's very expensive. That's why the
inexpensive stuff looks so much more like a video game and so much less like a
cockpit.

> So we are all using a keyboard that forces us to type more slowly than we could
> with an optimal keyboard. The Dvorak keyboard was designed to
> eliminate this problem. But hardly anyone uses it because we have all
> been taught to type on the old QWERTY keyboard.

The most recent studies I've seen on the Dvorak indicate that it actually
isn't any faster than a QWERTY keyboard. It turns out that the brain adapts
very well to whatever layout is used, and quickly gets up to speed.

More evidence of this can be seen in the way some people type on their
Blackberries or cell phones.

> I understand what you are saying. In the software world, designers
> try to make each new release more "helpful" than the last. Sometimes
> this is good, but mostly I just find it annoying.

The problem is that it can be deadly in aviation, and not just annoying.
Airbus is a classic example of the software-developer syndrome.

> The software tries
> to guess what you intend to do, and do it for you. If it guesses
> right, that's fine. But it seems like it mostly guesses wrong, and
> then you just have to un-do what it did. That's not an improvement.

Especially if it doesn't allow you to un-do anything.

This is a serious problem even in ordinary office automation software, but
it's much worse in safety-of-life software.

I recall a study done by Microsoft that showed that a great many people who
ask for new features for the Office product are actually asking for things
that are already there ... they just don't have any way of finding them in the
bloated mess that Office has become.

For this reason, I don't use Office--I spend more time trying to prevent it
from doing things I don't want it to do than I spend accomplishing anything
productive.

> I wish they would put more time into designing simple, intuitive user
> interfaces so I can more easily tell the program what I want it to
> do. That way the program doesn't have to guess.

It's extremely difficult and expensive to design such interfaces. And often
the goal is simply to add features to encourage sales and upgrades, and nobody
really cares about the ergonomy.

As I've said, I see signs of this in the low-end glass cockpits.
Unfortunately it diminishes safety.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> How would you know?
>
> I'm a licensed and very experienced driver with some extra training.


Bull****.



> That kind of credential seems to impress pilots with respect to
> airlines, so it should work the same magic for cars ... right?
>

You could get an astronaut rating and it wouldn't impress me.

Fjukwit.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Union Thug writes:

> The biggest difference between steam and digital is the amount of
> information you can display is much greater with digital. Take the
> speed tape for example, you get minimum and maximum values just like
> steam, but you can also get flap speeds, manuvering speeds for each
> flap setting, trend indications, trend vectoring, etc. You can display
> much more information on a modern glass PFD and ND than you ever could
> on an old school panel.

Being able to display more doesn't mean that the pilot uses or needs more, and
sometimes finding the needed information in a display system that provides
information overload can take too long for safety.

> Some manufacturers are better than others, but
> once you are used to these glass systems, you will find the hardest
> thing is to fly an old school panel again.

That would depend on their design. I think that goal is achieved to a large
extent with the most evolved and expensive systems used on commercial
transports, but I cannot say the same for the small and cheap systems used on
private small aircraft.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Oct 7, 4:55 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Phil > wrote in news:1191732077.235895.295410
>> @w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>
>> > Ideally, every instrument should be designed to convey the
>> > appropriate information in a way that is conducive to how that
>> > information is going to be used. If you just need a value, then a
>> > digital display of a number make sense. If you need to have a
>> > sense of where you are relative to minimum and maximum, then a
>> > display showing relative position in a range should be used. The
>> > nice thing about a computerized display is it can be set up to
>> > display the information either way.
>>
>> Well, not in the things I fly! They pretty much give you what has
>> been decided for you.
>>
>
> Sorry, I wasn't very clear there. What I meant was the designer of
> the computer display can program the pixels to convey the information
> either way. The display can show simply a number, or it can show a
> graphical representation of a range of values with a pointer to show
> the current position in the range. Right now you are stuck with
> whatever the designer chose for you, but as EFIS becomes more common
> and more sophisticated, it is very possible that it will be re-
> configurable by the pilot. I doubt that it will ever be completely
> flexible where you can get it to display any way you want, but I can
> imagine that there might be a selection of four or five different ways
> to display an instrument, and you can pick which one you like.


Nah, i knew what you meant, I just meant that means nothng to us. we get
what we get!
The exception is th nav screen where we can select traditional HSI type
dispays which is useful sometimes, but mostly we stay in map mode.
The operator can choose what kind of display is used to some extent. The
track up thing is an operator choice (by operator I mean the airline)
mine chose track up but the traditional display is available as well.

>
>
> That makes me wonder how the designers of EFIS displays choose their
> designs. Are the designs based on research or are they just the
> personal preferences of the designer? Hopefully there is some kind of
> objective research used to choose a display pattern that is easiest to
> use. Of course, that raises the whole issue of testing displays. Who
> do you get to test them? If you use pilots who have been flying
> analog gauges for years, you are probably going to find that they want
> EFIS displays that are like the analog instruments. But those
> displays may not actually be the optimal way for the brain to digest
> the information. It makes me think about the keyboard I am using to
> type this. It was designed back in the days of manual typewriters.
> Because manual typewriters tended to jam if you tried to type too
> fast, the keyboard was arranged to slow the typist down. So we are
> all using a keyboard that forces us to type more slowly than we could
> with an optimal keyboard. The Dvorak keyboard was designed to
> eliminate this problem. But hardly anyone uses it because we have all
> been taught to type on the old QWERTY keyboard.

Exactly
>
>> Even weirder, the newer airbusses use a speed reference system that
>> uses groundspeed on the approach. so, you set your Vref and the
>> airplane automatically raises it to accomodate a headwind by flying a
>> constant ground speed. (or advising you to fly faster by pushing the
>> speed bug up) It's simple, but interferes with the pilot's direct
>> communications with the wing. I suppose I'm trying to say it's
>> translating for you and somethng is always lost in the translation..
>>
>
> I understand what you are saying. In the software world, designers
> try to make each new release more "helpful" than the last. Sometimes
> this is good, but mostly I just find it annoying. The software tries
> to guess what you intend to do, and do it for you. If it guesses
> right, that's fine. But it seems like it mostly guesses wrong, and
> then you just have to un-do what it did. That's not an improvement.
> I wish they would put more time into designing simple, intuitive user
> interfaces so I can more easily tell the program what I want it to
> do. That way the program doesn't have to guess.
>
>> But don't mind me, I wish the 75 had flying wires so I could hear
>> them sing to me..
>
> Maybe some EFIS designer can set up the option to have the airspeed
> converted to a flying wire sound and played in your headset. :-)


It's been done!

Well, almost. Some MD80 types have an engine noise generator to aid the
crew in hand flying approaches.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Phil writes:
>
>> That makes me wonder how the designers of EFIS displays choose their
>> designs. Are the designs based on research or are they just the
>> personal preferences of the designer?
>
> My guess is that the expensive commercial stuff in airliners is the
> product of fairly extensive studies into ergonomy, whereas the
> inexpensive stuff sold for small aircraft has not been subjected to
> that kind of study, since it's not required for certification and it's
> very expensive. That's why the inexpensive stuff looks so much more
> like a video game and so much less like a cockpit.
>
>> So we are all using a keyboard that forces us to type more slowly
>> than we could with an optimal keyboard. The Dvorak keyboard was
>> designed to eliminate this problem. But hardly anyone uses it
>> because we have all been taught to type on the old QWERTY keyboard.
>
> The most recent studies I've seen on the Dvorak indicate that it
> actually isn't any faster than a QWERTY keyboard. It turns out that
> the brain adapts very well to whatever layout is used, and quickly
> gets up to speed.
>
> More evidence of this can be seen in the way some people type on their
> Blackberries or cell phones.
>
>> I understand what you are saying. In the software world, designers
>> try to make each new release more "helpful" than the last. Sometimes
>> this is good, but mostly I just find it annoying.
>
> The problem is that it can be deadly in aviation, and not just
> annoying. Airbus is a classic example of the software-developer
> syndrome.
>
>> The software tries
>> to guess what you intend to do, and do it for you. If it guesses
>> right, that's fine. But it seems like it mostly guesses wrong, and
>> then you just have to un-do what it did. That's not an improvement.
>
> Especially if it doesn't allow you to un-do anything.
>
> This is a serious problem even in ordinary office automation software,
> but it's much worse in safety-of-life software.
>
> I recall a study done by Microsoft that showed that a great many
> people who ask for new features for the Office product are actually
> asking for things that are already there ... they just don't have any
> way of finding them in the bloated mess that Office has become.
>
> For this reason, I don't use Office--I spend more time trying to
> prevent it from doing things I don't want it to do than I spend
> accomplishing anything productive.
>
>> I wish they would put more time into designing simple, intuitive user
>> interfaces so I can more easily tell the program what I want it to
>> do. That way the program doesn't have to guess.
>
> It's extremely difficult and expensive to design such interfaces. And
> often the goal is simply to add features to encourage sales and
> upgrades, and nobody really cares about the ergonomy.
>
> As I've said, I see signs of this in the low-end glass cockpits.
> Unfortunately it diminishes safety.


You have no idea what it does.

you don't fly, fjukkwit


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Union Thug writes:
>
>> The biggest difference between steam and digital is the amount of
>> information you can display is much greater with digital. Take the
>> speed tape for example, you get minimum and maximum values just like
>> steam, but you can also get flap speeds, manuvering speeds for each
>> flap setting, trend indications, trend vectoring, etc. You can
>> display much more information on a modern glass PFD and ND than you
>> ever could on an old school panel.
>
> Being able to display more doesn't mean that the pilot uses or needs
> more, and sometimes finding the needed information in a display system
> that provides information overload can take too long for safety.
>
>> Some manufacturers are better than others, but
>> once you are used to these glass systems, you will find the hardest
>> thing is to fly an old school panel again.
>
> That would depend on their design. I think that goal is achieved to a
> large extent with the most evolved and expensive systems used on
> commercial transports, but I cannot say the same for the small and
> cheap systems used on private small aircraft.
>

You can't say anything fjukkwit


You don;'t fly and you don't know anything about flying.

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> You could get an astronaut rating and it wouldn't impress me.

I'm not sure why I would want to impress you.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> You could get an astronaut rating and it wouldn't impress me.
>
> I'm not sure why I would want to impress you.
>



I don't either, but you seem to feel the need to.

Bertie

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ..
> Union Thug writes:
>

Hello MX, long time no see ;-)

This reminds me of the discussions in rec.photo.digital around 2002. So are
you still regarding film as superior to digital as you did then?

>> The biggest difference between steam and digital is the amount of
>> information you can display is much greater with digital. Take the
>> speed tape for example, you get minimum and maximum values just like
>> steam, but you can also get flap speeds, manuvering speeds for each
>> flap setting, trend indications, trend vectoring, etc. You can display
>> much more information on a modern glass PFD and ND than you ever could
>> on an old school panel.
>
> Being able to display more doesn't mean that the pilot uses or needs more,
> and
> sometimes finding the needed information in a display system that provides
> information overload can take too long for safety.
>

Then you must prefer performing your flight simulation with the B747-100
over the B747-400, right?

In my personal experience, I much prefer looking up the needed information
(example: approach crosswind component) from the glass panel, even if it
takes three seconds, than having to compute it in my head or on paper or
with E6B. Which method might be safer and more accurate?

That said, sometimes even the most basic steam gauges are quite capable of
generating information overload ;-)

>> Some manufacturers are better than others, but
>> once you are used to these glass systems, you will find the hardest
>> thing is to fly an old school panel again.
>
> That would depend on their design. I think that goal is achieved to a
> large
> extent with the most evolved and expensive systems used on commercial
> transports, but I cannot say the same for the small and cheap systems used
> on
> private small aircraft.

For once, I have to partly agree. There is still improvement potential in
the user interfaces. However, compared to mechanical gauges it's no contest
..

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

To all: Be advised that mxsmanic (Anthony Atkielski) is not a pilot and
never has been
one. In fact he has never flown in a small plane at all, or been at the
controls of anything other than a game.

He certainly doesn't know anything about avionics.

[Mxsmanic]

Snowbird writes:

> Then you must prefer performing your flight simulation with the B747-100
> over the B747-400, right?

They both provide about the same amount of information.

> That said, sometimes even the most basic steam gauges are quite capable of
> generating information overload ;-)

I find some analog altimeter designs to be rather counterintuitive.

> For once, I have to partly agree. There is still improvement potential in
> the user interfaces. However, compared to mechanical gauges it's no contest.

Until the computer fails, that is.

[Arno]

To be clear, my original complaint was not about screens in general,
but rather the way they are being used. I think the holy grail of how
to represent flight information has not yet been found. Designing a
good user interface is more art than science, as any computer
programmer knows.

Imagine we had open source cockpit software. It could run on actual
plane hardware and also on simulators, so you would have the whole sim
community writing cockpit software. And aircraft owners could download
whatever new software is out there and try it out (on a sunny day at
an uncontrolled airport:-))The FAA would probably have a fit, but the
EAA somehow managed to convince us that homebuilts are safe, so merely
writing software for perfectly airworthy planes can't be so bad.

Arno

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 6, 11:51 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> People who prefer the numbers usualy don't fly very well at all.

Which is every test pilot the military has used since the 60's.
Minimum requirement is an engineering degree but most have PhDs.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 6, 8:21 am, Arno > wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
> "speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
> same? Am I missing a particular technique?

I'm not sure what a computer scientist does but I'm a software
engineer with multiple patents, etc which I assume is similar. The
transitioning to teaching in glass was almost effortless to me.
Reading airspeed from a tape is much easier because you can also see
trends easier. The only hard part is to accept the fact that you're
not going to fly at 1,000 feet, it may be 1,005 or 995. On an analog
gauge we don't notice the difference but it can be frustrating getting
used to the difference when its right there to see.

-Robert, CFII, FITS trained Technically Advanced Aircraft instructor.

[Arno]

> I'm not sure what a computer scientist does but I'm a software
> engineer with multiple patents, etc which I assume is similar. The

My English is not native, I guess I should say software developer.

> transitioning to teaching in glass was almost effortless to me.
> Reading airspeed from a tape is much easier because you can also see
> trends easier. The only hard part is to accept the fact that you're
> not going to fly at 1,000 feet, it may be 1,005 or 995. On an analog
> gauge we don't notice the difference but it can be frustrating getting
> used to the difference when its right there to see.

My real problem is that the tape always looks the same. Squint your
eyes and tell me your speed or altitude. You can with gauges because
you still have a rough idea what a certain hand positon means. You
can't with tapes, because whether 1000 feet higher or 20 knots faster,
it looks pretty much the same. The difference is only in the numbers.

Arno

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:54:18 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote:

>To all: Be advised that mxsmanic (Anthony Atkielski) is not a pilot and
>never has been

HIWAS for USENET. <G>

[Snowbird]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
> Snowbird writes:
>
>>.....However, compared to mechanical gauges it's no contest.
>
> Until the computer fails, that is.

Mechanics are not failure-free either. In fact, during my brief aviator
career I've already experienced two (2) creeping altimeters and one (1)
stuck VSI. The worst, however, was an airspeed indicator that did not move
until the airplane was up to 35 knots. Makes for interesting decision
situations during take-off. I still don't know if the fault was in the
instrument or if there was water or a bug in the pitot line.

[Union Thug]

On Oct 7, 12:57 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 11:51 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > People who prefer the numbers usualy don't fly very well at all.
>
> Which is every test pilot the military has used since the 60's.
> Minimum requirement is an engineering degree but most have PhDs.
>

Bob, This would be news to a couple of coworker buddies of mine. Both
of them did engineering and production test pilot work on two famous
fighters. One majored in music (you should hear him play gutair ) and
the other was political science. One of my ski buddies is former top
gun and he will be the first to tell you that the education thing is
highly over rated.
K B

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 7, 2:32 pm, Union Thug > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 12:57 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 6, 11:51 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > People who prefer the numbers usualy don't fly very well at all.
>
> > Which is every test pilot the military has used since the 60's.
> > Minimum requirement is an engineering degree but most have PhDs.
>
> Bob, This would be news to a couple of coworker buddies of mine. Both
> of them did engineering and production test pilot work on two famous
> fighters. One majored in music (you should hear him play gutair ) and
> the other was political science. One of my ski buddies is former top
> gun and he will be the first to tell you that the education thing is
> highly over rated.
> K B

Which branch of the service where they in when they were test pilots.
-Robert

[Union Thug]

On Oct 7, 2:51 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2:32 pm, Union Thug > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 12:57 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 6, 11:51 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > > People who prefer the numbers usualy don't fly very well at all.
>
> > > Which is every test pilot the military has used since the 60's.
> > > Minimum requirement is an engineering degree but most have PhDs.
>
> Which branch of the service where they in when they were test pilots.
> -Robert- Hide quoted text -
>
One at GD and one AF and NASA.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Snowbird writes:
>
>> Then you must prefer performing your flight simulation with the
>> B747-100 over the B747-400, right?
>
> They both provide about the same amount of information.
>
>> That said, sometimes even the most basic steam gauges are quite
>> capable of generating information overload ;-)
>
> I find some analog altimeter designs to be rather counterintuitive.
>
>> For once, I have to partly agree. There is still improvement
>> potential in the user interfaces. However, compared to mechanical
>> gauges it's no contest.
>
> Until the computer fails, that is.
>

You gotta have some good old fashioned stuff for backup..

Well, until recently you did anyway!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Snowbird" > wrote in
ti.fi:

>
> "Mxsmanic" wrote ...
>> Snowbird writes:
>>
>>>.....However, compared to mechanical gauges it's no contest.
>>
>> Until the computer fails, that is.
>
> Mechanics are not failure-free either. In fact, during my brief
> aviator career I've already experienced two (2) creeping altimeters
> and one (1) stuck VSI. The worst, however, was an airspeed indicator
> that did not move until the airplane was up to 35 knots. Makes for
> interesting decision situations during take-off. I still don't know if
> the fault was in the instrument or if there was water or a bug in the
> pitot line.
>
>
>



Bit different from watching your screens disappear completely. Also the
computers often tie in several instruments together. for instance, theres
only one gyro on larger aircraft for the attitude and heading. For the
pressure instruments, all th estuff comes off the Air Data Computer.


Thus, a single failure results in the loss fo several instruments at once.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:1191787050.286971.212410
@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 6, 11:51 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> People who prefer the numbers usualy don't fly very well at all.
>
> Which is every test pilot the military has used since the 60's.
> Minimum requirement is an engineering degree but most have PhDs.

There's a difference between using the numbers and preferring them.


Bertie

[Kirk Ellis]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:21:27 -0000, Arno >
wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
>I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
>am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
>gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
>analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
>"speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
>midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>
>Arno

I had the same problem at first, but as others have said it's just a
matter of practice. It's similar to the transition I made to using the
HUD on my car. With the standard speedometer it's not so much about
reading the number as it is in recognizing the geometry / location of
the needle. With the HUD it takes another few milleseconds to read and
process a displayed number.



Kirk
PPL-ASEL

[Peter Dohm]

"Kirk Ellis" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:21:27 -0000, Arno >
> wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
>>I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
>>am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>>these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
>>gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
>>analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
>>"speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
>>midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>>reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>>same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>>
>>Arno
>
> I had the same problem at first, but as others have said it's just a
> matter of practice. It's similar to the transition I made to using the
> HUD on my car. With the standard speedometer it's not so much about
> reading the number as it is in recognizing the geometry / location of
> the needle. With the HUD it takes another few milleseconds to read and
> process a displayed number.
>
>
>
> Kirk
> PPL-ASEL

In other words, you need to further increase your following distance in
order to read your speedometer--even though it is placed closed to your
normal line of vision.

Actually, a little more following distance might be a good idea for most
drivers, but this is an example of really poor ergonomics--without even
considering the "wait until you wear bifocals" argument.

Peter

[Kirk Ellis]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 21:42:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:


>
>In other words, you need to further increase your following distance in
>order to read your speedometer--even though it is placed closed to your
>normal line of vision.
>
>Actually, a little more following distance might be a good idea for most
>drivers, but this is an example of really poor ergonomics--without even
>considering the "wait until you wear bifocals" argument.
>
>Peter
>
>

I haven't done any ergonomic studies, but it does seem to take a tad
less time for a quick glance at the dash. Still, tailgating is never
an option.

As opposed to a HUD in an aircraft, the practicality of a HUD in a car
is completely lost on me. It displays ther fuel level, and oil
temperatures, but I have to admit I don't see the point. It may be
helpful if your zipping down the interstate at F-18 rotation speeds so
you don't have to take your eyes off the road. But, mostly it's all
about the "coolness" factor.




Kirk
PPL-ASEL

[buttman]

On Oct 6, 8:21 am, Arno > wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
>
> Arno

When I used to fly Avidyne equipped planes, I absolutly loved the tape
altimeter, but preferred the dial airspeed. Ever since switching back
to steam gauges (about 600 flight hours ago) I've never quite gotten
used to the round altimeter. I still want to level off at 3800 instead
of 2800 etc.

The range of possible airspeed values varies within a limited range
(Vso to Vne). Depicting that data as a specified position within that
range makes the most sense to me. On the other hand, altitudes can be
anywhere from -600feet to 60,000 feet. The only relation the different
values have to each other is "higher" and "lower". The best way to
logically depict that relation is with a "tape" display. With a steam
gauge altimeter, 6000 feet looks pretty darn similar to 7000 feet,
8000 feet and 9000 feet, even though those values have no meaningful
relation (other than they all end with zeros which means nothing to a
pilot). With a tape display, 6000 looks nothing like 7000, but it does
kind of look similar to 6100 and 5900, which is meaningful to a pilot.

[Mxsmanic]

Snowbird writes:

> Mechanics are not failure-free either.

True, but a glass cockpit concentrates too much in too few components, raising
the risk of catastrophic failure. Also, digital systems typically have
catastrophic failure modes, whereas analog systems do not.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> You gotta have some good old fashioned stuff for backup..
>
> Well, until recently you did anyway!

I fear what may happen when there is no longer a back-up--or when pilots
forget how to use the back-ups.

Also, while you may have some back-up instruments, a situation that would be
both safe and manageable with a complete avionics suite in working order can
become dangerous and unrecoverable if you have only a handful of instruments.
There are some things that you can do with fancy avionics that you cannot do
with just two or three steam gauges ... otherwise there'd be little point in
the fancy avionics. But this inevitably means that there will be situations
that are safe with the fancy stuff that become deadly without it, even with
back-up instruments.

Flying with three or four instruments is fine as long as you limit your flying
to situations that can be handled by those instruments. Of course, if you
have a fancy glass cockpit, you may well go far beyond those situations, and
if the glass cockpit then fails, you're in deep trouble.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 11:21?am, Arno > wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
> "speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>
> Arno

Take a look at the EFIS 1200 at www.teamtango.com, go to the
options page. The ADI screen has BIG digital numbers for airspeed,
heading, and altitude as well as round dials underneath. I have
flown other EFIS systems with displays similar to what you describe.
I got used to them , but in some instances preferred round dials. No
more. I have about 140 hours with the EFIS 1200 and find the BIG
digits easier to read and interpret. Initally I looked for the
altimeter needle at the bottom of the dial when flying at VFR
hemispheric altitude, but now I pay more attention to the digits. I
don't need tapes or ladders for trends. IMHO we could eliminate the
analog dials at this point and I wouldn't miss them. Just as a big
horizon line is easier to interpret than a two inch standby gauge,
size matters when it comes to glancing at those important numbers.
The guy who builds the EFIS 1200 agrees with you on the Avidyne and
similar displays and built what he thought was a better display. I
like it. There is more to come, but that is a different topic.

Denny

[Union Thug]

On Oct 7, 7:58 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> > You gotta have some good old fashioned stuff for backup..
>
> > Well, until recently you did anyway!
>
> I fear what may happen when there is no longer a back-up--or when pilots
> forget how to use the back-ups.
>
> Also, while you may have some back-up instruments, a situation that would be
> both safe and manageable with a complete avionics suite in working order can
> become dangerous and unrecoverable if you have only a handful of instruments.
> There are some things that you can do with fancy avionics that you cannot do
> with just two or three steam gauges ... otherwise there'd be little point in
> the fancy avionics. But this inevitably means that there will be situations
> that are safe with the fancy stuff that become deadly without it, even with
> back-up instruments.
>
> Flying with three or four instruments is fine as long as you limit your flying
> to situations that can be handled by those instruments. Of course, if you
> have a fancy glass cockpit, you may well go far beyond those situations, and
> if the glass cockpit then fails, you're in deep trouble.

MX,
I am gonna break a cardinal rule here and respond to one of your
posts.I am doing this because you have raised a question others might
be interested in. I cannot speak for other jets ( I am sure they are
similar) , but the Boeing uses an ADIRU which has 2 sets of three
laser ring gyros either set will sufice to measure acceleration, pitch
and roll. And there is an ADIRU for each side of the cockpit (Capt &
FO). The IRS will also provide attitude info and there are two of
those also. Keep in mind you can switch the display to all on system
one or two. With this level of redundancy we dont even practice
partial panel or raw data stuff in the sim, it is simply not
necessary. Years ago I flew an approach with just backup instruments
in a turbo prop after a total EFIS failure and it was no big deal. I
think you might be making more of this than you need to.
KB

[Mxsmanic]

Union Thug writes:

> I am gonna break a cardinal rule here and respond to one of your
> posts.I am doing this because you have raised a question others might
> be interested in. I cannot speak for other jets ( I am sure they are
> similar) , but the Boeing uses an ADIRU which has 2 sets of three
> laser ring gyros either set will sufice to measure acceleration, pitch
> and roll. And there is an ADIRU for each side of the cockpit (Capt &
> FO). The IRS will also provide attitude info and there are two of
> those also. Keep in mind you can switch the display to all on system
> one or two. With this level of redundancy we dont even practice
> partial panel or raw data stuff in the sim, it is simply not
> necessary. Years ago I flew an approach with just backup instruments
> in a turbo prop after a total EFIS failure and it was no big deal. I
> think you might be making more of this than you need to.

I was talking about small aircraft with the kiddy glass cockpits, like the
G1000. I realize that large airliners have a great deal of redundancy built
in. They also have more ergonomic instruments and less of a tendency to
bundle everything into a single package.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> You gotta have some good old fashioned stuff for backup..
>>
>> Well, until recently you did anyway!
>
> I fear what may happen when there is no longer a back-up--or when
> pilots forget how to use the back-ups.


Why, you don't fly fjukktard.



>
> Also, while you may have some back-up instruments, a situation that
> would be both safe and manageable with a complete avionics suite in
> working order can become dangerous and unrecoverable if you have only
> a handful of instruments.


Nope, I can do a hand flown landing nearly to touchdonw on the standbys.


Proving once again that you have no idea what you are talking about.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Union Thug writes:
>
>> I am gonna break a cardinal rule here and respond to one of your
>> posts.I am doing this because you have raised a question others might
>> be interested in. I cannot speak for other jets ( I am sure they are
>> similar) , but the Boeing uses an ADIRU which has 2 sets of three
>> laser ring gyros either set will sufice to measure acceleration,
>> pitch and roll. And there is an ADIRU for each side of the cockpit
>> (Capt & FO). The IRS will also provide attitude info and there are
>> two of those also. Keep in mind you can switch the display to all on
>> system one or two. With this level of redundancy we dont even
>> practice partial panel or raw data stuff in the sim, it is simply not
>> necessary. Years ago I flew an approach with just backup instruments
>> in a turbo prop after a total EFIS failure and it was no big deal. I
>> think you might be making more of this than you need to.
>
> I was talking about small aircraft with the kiddy glass cockpits, like
> the G1000.


Stil dn;'t know what you are talking about.



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Nope, I can do a hand flown landing nearly to touchdonw on the standbys.

"Nearly" to touchdown doesn't count!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Nope, I can do a hand flown landing nearly to touchdonw on the
>> standbys.
>
> "Nearly" to touchdown doesn't count!
>

LHow would you know you dumb ****?

You don't fly.

Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 8, 9:32 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> > Nope, I can do a hand flown landing nearly to touchdonw on the standbys.
>
> "Nearly" to touchdown doesn't count!

We don't do CAT III landings in GA aircraft so it is good enough.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 8, 9:32 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>> > Nope, I can do a hand flown landing nearly to touchdonw on the
>> > standbys.
>>
>> "Nearly" to touchdown doesn't count!
>
> We don't do CAT III landings in GA aircraft so it is good enough.
>
> -Robert
>
>

Even so, if needs be and there's no ther option, a hand flown ils to
touchdown is quite do-able with a bit of practice.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> We don't do CAT III landings in GA aircraft so it is good enough.

How can any flying that does not include landing be "good enough"?

[Arno]

> horizon line is easier to interpret than a two inch standby gauge,
> size matters when it comes to glancing at those important numbers.
> The guy who builds the EFIS 1200 agrees with you on the Avidyne and
> similar displays and built what he thought was a better display. I
> like it. There is more to come, but that is a different topic.
>
> Denny

Good to know there are people who are still working on alternatives.
And it's runs even under Windows :-) As I said, if we get enthusiasts
to try out new designs, something better is going to come out of it
eventually.

Arno

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> Clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
> clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,

Man, 87 KB of clueless, is a whole LOT of clueless.

Impressive. I'm not sure of what type of impressive it is, though.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in news:ERyOi.715$zL7.439
@newsfe12.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> Clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
>> clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless, clueless,
>
> Man, 87 KB of clueless, is a whole LOT of clueless.
>
> Impressive. I'm not sure of what type of impressive it is, though.

You will


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 12:56 pm, john smith > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
> wrote:
> > A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
> > with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
> > adapt to them.
>
> So do the numbers get bigger or smaller as the tape move down?

It does not get bigger when it moves down slowly. It only does
that when it moves down quickly, sucking the pilot to get closer
to the fast moving tape. It may be even bloodier, unless one is
trained
to slow down the fast moving tape before it displays a single digit 0.