![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Michael" wrote in message om... "Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote Can you explain why that is the one advantage (BC)/revers on localizer, and why that is so? Do you mean to say that people confuse which color sector they are in on a localizer due to "reverse needle"? Yes, that is exactly what I mean to say. If so then it is a training issue, not a technology issue. Oh man, here we go. You've just touched off a religious debate. In real life, I run a department that designs instrumentation for process environments. What that means is that engineers design it, but generally non-engineers (plant operators, meter readers, technicians) install and use it. These days, most instrumentation has software in it, so it should not come as a surprise that I rose into that position from software engineering. In the process, I learned a lot about user interfaces. There are two kinds of user interface bug. There is the kind where the user interface acts contrary to design, in a useless or unpredictable manner in a given situation (coding error) and there is the kind where it acts as designed (intentionally or unintentionally), in a manner that is predictable and useful but, in certain situations, counter-intuitive to the operator (design error). The first kind is unusuable in those given situations. The second kind is usable, provided you read the manual and are aware of how the system will behave. There are those who believe that this means it's not an error - that you should simply RTFM. In other words, that it is a training issue. They are wrong. I do not disagree. The "reverse" indication of a conventional CDI is a design error. You can work around it. I have. I had to shoot a LOC BC approach with engine failure at leveloff (simulating a failure of the engine to come up on the powerup for leveloff) followed by a single engine missed approach. I passed - meaning I executed the approach and miss to ATP standards, and I have the certificate to prove it. Nonetheless, a couple of times I found myself, with the needle half a dot off, applying the incorrect contol inputs before I "caught" myself. So clearly the training worked - I corrected before I deviated beyond ATP standards - but that doesn't mean that the design is correct. It's not. On an approach, you're used to correcting towards the needle. Under normal conditions, you should have the situational awareness to know what you are doing, rather than just correcting by habit. However, in emergency conditions where the workload becomes high, there is a tendency to revert to habit. In other words, the operation becomes counter-intuitive. Here disagree - the current use appears to imply a "design flaw" but that is only because of imporper use and instruction of the instrument. It does not "point" to the course, rather it shows what sector of the localizer course you are on. (shaded or unshaded.) It is a back course - meaning you are coming from the other way. You know this. Clearly the instruction should be corrected - it is a lot cheaper than everyone buying HSIs. I have no difficulty with localizer front or back course, though I am certain I would mix things up if I had been taught the improper (but more common) use of the needle pointing to the course (except for BC which is different) Sometimes this is unavoidable, but where this is done for no good reason, it's simply bad design. It's really quite simple to modify a conventional CDI for "reverse" sensing - all it takes is the addition of a simple DPDT switch, and the needle will act correctly on the BC. Thus I have to say it's done for no good reason. Only in aviation is somehting like this not done - because this is how we've always done it (and because the FAA would make such a modification cost-prohibitive). The UK (and I believe other nations) will not certify LOC-BC approaches because the potential for error is believed to be too high. I don't agree with this - I consider the potential for error to be adequately low with proper training - but the addition of a cheap, simple, and reliable part to the CDI (or replacement with an HSI) eliminates the potential for error - and is thus clearly an advantage. And what is thins part? I contest that ensuring the blue and yellow colors on the instrument and proper training would avert the confusion. Michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|