Glass cockpit hard to read

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.

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

"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

"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

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

"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

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

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.

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.

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.