Attitude indicators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julian Scarfe

"R&A Kyle" wrote

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

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

Bob Moore

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


And how is this advantage conferred by the paint job?

Jose

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

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

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

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

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

This wasn't uncommon in early instrument work. As a matter of fact, the
Buddy Holly/Big Bopper/Richy Valens crash was blamed in part on the
fact that the aircraft had an Sperry Attitude Gyro (fixed horizon moving
airplane) where the pilot's experience had been on the more conventional
artificial horizon.

-Ron

"JimC" wrote in
:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Manuel
PPL(A) SEP




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

As did at least some of our early WWII fighters.



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

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

-Manuel
PPL(A) SEP




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

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

"JimC" wrote in
:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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