Glass cockpit hard to read

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

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

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:21:27 -0000, Arno
wrote in . com:

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

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.

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).

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

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

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

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

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