Airvan aircraft

John,

Gotta agree! I have only seen one picture of the panel; it looked
intelligent and utilitarian (unless we get into an arguement regarding
overhead switches). I liked the picture so much I added it to my
Webshots screensaver (grin).

Now you have me curious...argument over overhead switches? I guess I
wasn't aware there was one, back in the '60s the crashworthiness folks
found out that overhead panels killed pilots in crashes; the switches
penetrated the skull, so the word went out to avoid them if at all
possible. As the nose buried itself in the quick stop, and if there
were any vertical loads on impact, the pilot either went forward into
the overhead as it snapped down or simply smacked into the switches
and sharp edges as the nose buried and the pilot hit the roof. Nasty
things, overhead switches. Then, in the '70s, the CRM and human
factors types figured out that pilots keep flying after they hit 40
and need bifocals, and they can't read the overhead panels with
bifocals.

I guess, perhaps, the word hasn't gotten to everyone (it is the one
big drawback to the Airvan...you get young engineers and they don't
always know the history of the subjects of aircraft design) so they
have to make the same mistakes over again. Unfortunately, that could
be expensive for Gippsland if they have a slow impact fatal and the
front seat occupants buy it due to the overhead panel.

I'm looking at your comment and wondering whether there are those who
think overhead panels are attractive or cool and therefore use them
because they don't know about the research that was done nearly 40
years ago. Now, I'm curious as to why designers/engineers would put
in an overhead panel on an otherwise simple airplane. It can't be for
panel space problems, I've flown far more complex airplanes, with the
same size panel, in which the designers were able to put everything in
front of the pilot.

Any thoughts on the subject?

All the best,
Rick

(Rick Durden) wrote in message m...
John,

Gotta agree! I have only seen one picture of the panel; it looked
intelligent and utilitarian (unless we get into an arguement regarding
overhead switches). I liked the picture so much I added it to my
Webshots screensaver (grin).

Now you have me curious...argument over overhead switches? I guess I
wasn't aware there was one, back in the '60s the crashworthiness folks
found out that overhead panels killed pilots in crashes; the switches
penetrated the skull, so the word went out to avoid them if at all
possible. As the nose buried itself in the quick stop, and if there
were any vertical loads on impact, the pilot either went forward into
the overhead as it snapped down or simply smacked into the switches
and sharp edges as the nose buried and the pilot hit the roof. Nasty
things, overhead switches. Then, in the '70s, the CRM and human
factors types figured out that pilots keep flying after they hit 40
and need bifocals, and they can't read the overhead panels with
bifocals.

I guess, perhaps, the word hasn't gotten to everyone (it is the one
big drawback to the Airvan...you get young engineers and they don't
always know the history of the subjects of aircraft design) so they
have to make the same mistakes over again. Unfortunately, that could
be expensive for Gippsland if they have a slow impact fatal and the
front seat occupants buy it due to the overhead panel.

I'm looking at your comment and wondering whether there are those who
think overhead panels are attractive or cool and therefore use them
because they don't know about the research that was done nearly 40
years ago. Now, I'm curious as to why designers/engineers would put
in an overhead panel on an otherwise simple airplane. It can't be for
panel space problems, I've flown far more complex airplanes, with the
same size panel, in which the designers were able to put everything in
front of the pilot.

Any thoughts on the subject?

All the best,
Rick

Rick,

I'll open with that I offered the comment regarding overhead panels
90% in jest.

I have heard the arguments regarding the difficulty of bifocal wearers
properly seeing things and that has made sense. I have never heard
the survivability aspect of the argument. It sounds a lot like the
arguments for shoulder harnesses that cite the dents created by panel
controls in the foreheads of deceased pilots.

As you noted, many may not know about this issue due to their age (I
offer no similar excuse). My acceptance of overhead panels is based
on some of the other horrible panel arrangements of I have seen. It
seems some aircraft had their switches, controls, and instruments
installed with a 12-gauge shotgun. I agree that it never really
seemed to be about space. Chances are that the designers were not
being perverse but rather they were thinking about other things like
ease of manufacture. I just never liked reaching all the way to the
other side of the panel and thought putting things there was a poor
idea. My experience with overhead controls was a long time ago and
limited to trim using a crank that made (to me) absolutely no sense.

The people building the big iron continue using overhead switch panels
despite the amazing amount of real estate on the front panel being
freed up on newer aircraft with multi-function displays. Part of the
argument I have heard is that you put stuff up there that is not used
very often.

On the other hand, the extent that some of these panels go back seems
to be an ergonomic and chiropractic nightmare. I wonder how much this
was a factor for the Swissair crew in the MD-11 with the electrical
fire off the Canada coast a few years back. The thought of trying to
reach way back to isolate an electrical problem on a dark night does
not appeal to me.

This ends my humble $.02 and thanks for a great discussion.

Best

John

(Rick Durden) wrote in message m...
Now you have me curious...argument over overhead switches? I guess I
wasn't aware there was one, back in the '60s the crashworthiness folks
found out that overhead panels killed pilots in crashes; the switches
penetrated the skull, so the word went out to avoid them if at all
possible.
snip

I'm looking at your comment and wondering whether there are those who
think overhead panels are attractive or cool and therefore use them
because they don't know about the research that was done nearly 40
years ago. Now, I'm curious as to why designers/engineers would put
in an overhead panel on an otherwise simple airplane. It can't be for
panel space problems, I've flown far more complex airplanes, with the
same size panel, in which the designers were able to put everything in
front of the pilot.

If you've got any contacts a Piper, you might want to ask them. I
flew one of their new Archer IIIs last year and was really put off by
their new overhead switch arrangement. The switches were located at
the top of the pilots side windshield and blocked the view up. I
can't see any reason why they would do this, as the previous location
for these switches on the panel was quite good (and remained unchanged
for a couple of decades).

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

(John Galban) wrote in message . com...
(Rick Durden) wrote in message m...
Now you have me curious...argument over overhead switches? I guess I
wasn't aware there was one, back in the '60s the crashworthiness folks
found out that overhead panels killed pilots in crashes; the switches
penetrated the skull, so the word went out to avoid them if at all
possible.
snip

I'm looking at your comment and wondering whether there are those who
think overhead panels are attractive or cool and therefore use them
because they don't know about the research that was done nearly 40
years ago. Now, I'm curious as to why designers/engineers would put
in an overhead panel on an otherwise simple airplane. It can't be for
panel space problems, I've flown far more complex airplanes, with the
same size panel, in which the designers were able to put everything in
front of the pilot.

If you've got any contacts a Piper, you might want to ask them. I
flew one of their new Archer IIIs last year and was really put off by
their new overhead switch arrangement. The switches were located at
the top of the pilots side windshield and blocked the view up. I
can't see any reason why they would do this, as the previous location
for these switches on the panel was quite good (and remained unchanged
for a couple of decades).

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

John,

I have not sat in any of the New Pipers, but no one I know has said
anything nice about the overhead switches on them. IMHO, the switches
were very well placed when they were located in the center of the
panel. I never cared for the side wall placement I have seen on
Lances and some other Cherokee models.

However, if someone were to offer me a cherry Cherokee with the side
switches, it would not be an automatic no.

Best

John

John,

Good points, especially about the instruments being installed in holes
made with a shotgun...I think that is how the Piper Apache panel was
designed.

All the best,
Rick

(John Pelchat) wrote in message . com...
(Rick Durden) wrote in message m...
John,

Gotta agree! I have only seen one picture of the panel; it looked
intelligent and utilitarian (unless we get into an arguement regarding
overhead switches). I liked the picture so much I added it to my
Webshots screensaver (grin).

Now you have me curious...argument over overhead switches? I guess I
wasn't aware there was one, back in the '60s the crashworthiness folks
found out that overhead panels killed pilots in crashes; the switches
penetrated the skull, so the word went out to avoid them if at all
possible. As the nose buried itself in the quick stop, and if there
were any vertical loads on impact, the pilot either went forward into
the overhead as it snapped down or simply smacked into the switches
and sharp edges as the nose buried and the pilot hit the roof. Nasty
things, overhead switches. Then, in the '70s, the CRM and human
factors types figured out that pilots keep flying after they hit 40
and need bifocals, and they can't read the overhead panels with
bifocals.

I guess, perhaps, the word hasn't gotten to everyone (it is the one
big drawback to the Airvan...you get young engineers and they don't
always know the history of the subjects of aircraft design) so they
have to make the same mistakes over again. Unfortunately, that could
be expensive for Gippsland if they have a slow impact fatal and the
front seat occupants buy it due to the overhead panel.

I'm looking at your comment and wondering whether there are those who
think overhead panels are attractive or cool and therefore use them
because they don't know about the research that was done nearly 40
years ago. Now, I'm curious as to why designers/engineers would put
in an overhead panel on an otherwise simple airplane. It can't be for
panel space problems, I've flown far more complex airplanes, with the
same size panel, in which the designers were able to put everything in
front of the pilot.

Any thoughts on the subject?

All the best,
Rick

Rick,

I'll open with that I offered the comment regarding overhead panels
90% in jest.

I have heard the arguments regarding the difficulty of bifocal wearers
properly seeing things and that has made sense. I have never heard
the survivability aspect of the argument. It sounds a lot like the
arguments for shoulder harnesses that cite the dents created by panel
controls in the foreheads of deceased pilots.

As you noted, many may not know about this issue due to their age (I
offer no similar excuse). My acceptance of overhead panels is based
on some of the other horrible panel arrangements of I have seen. It
seems some aircraft had their switches, controls, and instruments
installed with a 12-gauge shotgun. I agree that it never really
seemed to be about space. Chances are that the designers were not
being perverse but rather they were thinking about other things like
ease of manufacture. I just never liked reaching all the way to the
other side of the panel and thought putting things there was a poor
idea. My experience with overhead controls was a long time ago and
limited to trim using a crank that made (to me) absolutely no sense.

The people building the big iron continue using overhead switch panels
despite the amazing amount of real estate on the front panel being
freed up on newer aircraft with multi-function displays. Part of the
argument I have heard is that you put stuff up there that is not used
very often.

On the other hand, the extent that some of these panels go back seems
to be an ergonomic and chiropractic nightmare. I wonder how much this
was a factor for the Swissair crew in the MD-11 with the electrical
fire off the Canada coast a few years back. The thought of trying to
reach way back to isolate an electrical problem on a dark night does
not appeal to me.

This ends my humble $.02 and thanks for a great discussion.

Best

John

John,

Why do I wonder whether the overhead in the Piper's was motivated by
marketing folks who thought they looked cool and didn't have the
faintest inkling of the research that had been done that concluded
they were not a good thing to put in an airplane.....


All the best,
Rick

(John Galban) wrote in message . com...
(Rick Durden) wrote in message m...
Now you have me curious...argument over overhead switches? I guess I
wasn't aware there was one, back in the '60s the crashworthiness folks
found out that overhead panels killed pilots in crashes; the switches
penetrated the skull, so the word went out to avoid them if at all
possible.
snip

I'm looking at your comment and wondering whether there are those who
think overhead panels are attractive or cool and therefore use them
because they don't know about the research that was done nearly 40
years ago. Now, I'm curious as to why designers/engineers would put
in an overhead panel on an otherwise simple airplane. It can't be for
panel space problems, I've flown far more complex airplanes, with the
same size panel, in which the designers were able to put everything in
front of the pilot.

If you've got any contacts a Piper, you might want to ask them. I
flew one of their new Archer IIIs last year and was really put off by
their new overhead switch arrangement. The switches were located at
the top of the pilots side windshield and blocked the view up. I
can't see any reason why they would do this, as the previous location
for these switches on the panel was quite good (and remained unchanged
for a couple of decades).

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Hey, wait a minute, I resemble that remark...

Fat Albert the Apache

"Rick Durden" wrote in message
m...
John,

Good points, especially about the instruments being installed in holes
made with a shotgun...I think that is how the Piper Apache panel was
designed.

All the best,
Rick

(John Pelchat) wrote in message
. com...
(Rick Durden) wrote in message
m...
John,

Gotta agree! I have only seen one picture of the panel; it looked
intelligent and utilitarian (unless we get into an arguement
regarding
overhead switches). I liked the picture so much I added it to my
Webshots screensaver (grin).

Now you have me curious...argument over overhead switches? I guess I
wasn't aware there was one, back in the '60s the crashworthiness folks
found out that overhead panels killed pilots in crashes; the switches
penetrated the skull, so the word went out to avoid them if at all
possible. As the nose buried itself in the quick stop, and if there
were any vertical loads on impact, the pilot either went forward into
the overhead as it snapped down or simply smacked into the switches
and sharp edges as the nose buried and the pilot hit the roof. Nasty
things, overhead switches. Then, in the '70s, the CRM and human
factors types figured out that pilots keep flying after they hit 40
and need bifocals, and they can't read the overhead panels with
bifocals.

I guess, perhaps, the word hasn't gotten to everyone (it is the one
big drawback to the Airvan...you get young engineers and they don't
always know the history of the subjects of aircraft design) so they
have to make the same mistakes over again. Unfortunately, that could
be expensive for Gippsland if they have a slow impact fatal and the
front seat occupants buy it due to the overhead panel.

I'm looking at your comment and wondering whether there are those who
think overhead panels are attractive or cool and therefore use them
because they don't know about the research that was done nearly 40
years ago. Now, I'm curious as to why designers/engineers would put
in an overhead panel on an otherwise simple airplane. It can't be for
panel space problems, I've flown far more complex airplanes, with the
same size panel, in which the designers were able to put everything in
front of the pilot.

Any thoughts on the subject?

All the best,
Rick

Rick,

I'll open with that I offered the comment regarding overhead panels
90% in jest.

I have heard the arguments regarding the difficulty of bifocal wearers
properly seeing things and that has made sense. I have never heard
the survivability aspect of the argument. It sounds a lot like the
arguments for shoulder harnesses that cite the dents created by panel
controls in the foreheads of deceased pilots.

As you noted, many may not know about this issue due to their age (I
offer no similar excuse). My acceptance of overhead panels is based
on some of the other horrible panel arrangements of I have seen. It
seems some aircraft had their switches, controls, and instruments
installed with a 12-gauge shotgun. I agree that it never really
seemed to be about space. Chances are that the designers were not
being perverse but rather they were thinking about other things like
ease of manufacture. I just never liked reaching all the way to the
other side of the panel and thought putting things there was a poor
idea. My experience with overhead controls was a long time ago and
limited to trim using a crank that made (to me) absolutely no sense.

The people building the big iron continue using overhead switch panels
despite the amazing amount of real estate on the front panel being
freed up on newer aircraft with multi-function displays. Part of the
argument I have heard is that you put stuff up there that is not used
very often.

On the other hand, the extent that some of these panels go back seems
to be an ergonomic and chiropractic nightmare. I wonder how much this
was a factor for the Swissair crew in the MD-11 with the electrical
fire off the Canada coast a few years back. The thought of trying to
reach way back to isolate an electrical problem on a dark night does
not appeal to me.

This ends my humble $.02 and thanks for a great discussion.

Best

John

John Pelchat wrote:
(John Galban) wrote in message . com...

(Rick Durden) wrote in message m...

Now you have me curious...argument over overhead switches? I guess I
wasn't aware there was one, back in the '60s the crashworthiness folks
found out that overhead panels killed pilots in crashes; the switches
penetrated the skull, so the word went out to avoid them if at all
possible.

snip

I'm looking at your comment and wondering whether there are those who
think overhead panels are attractive or cool and therefore use them
because they don't know about the research that was done nearly 40
years ago. Now, I'm curious as to why designers/engineers would put
in an overhead panel on an otherwise simple airplane. It can't be for
panel space problems, I've flown far more complex airplanes, with the
same size panel, in which the designers were able to put everything in
front of the pilot.

If you've got any contacts a Piper, you might want to ask them. I
flew one of their new Archer IIIs last year and was really put off by
their new overhead switch arrangement. The switches were located at
the top of the pilots side windshield and blocked the view up. I
can't see any reason why they would do this, as the previous location
for these switches on the panel was quite good (and remained unchanged
for a couple of decades).

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)


John,

I have not sat in any of the New Pipers, but no one I know has said
anything nice about the overhead switches on them. IMHO, the switches
were very well placed when they were located in the center of the
panel. I never cared for the side wall placement I have seen on
Lances and some other Cherokee models.

However, if someone were to offer me a cherry Cherokee with the side
switches, it would not be an automatic no.

Best

John


There are some more photos of the Airvan flight deck at this website.
It shows detail for the overhead panel.


/www.njwg.cap.gov/Operations/Gippsland/

"Kevin" wrote in message
news:7mQDb.410999$ao4.1343213@attbi_s51...
John Pelchat wrote:
(John Galban) wrote in message
. com...
John,

I have not sat in any of the New Pipers, but no one I know has said
anything nice about the overhead switches on them. IMHO, the switches
were very well placed when they were located in the center of the
panel. I never cared for the side wall placement I have seen on
Lances and some other Cherokee models.

However, if someone were to offer me a cherry Cherokee with the side
switches, it would not be an automatic no.

Best

John


There are some more photos of the Airvan flight deck at this website.
It shows detail for the overhead panel.


/www.njwg.cap.gov/Operations/Gippsland/

This one seems a lot more efficient in a refurbished Rockwell JetProp 1000
(but it's an "eyebrow panel" not specifically an "overhead" panel.

http://www.eagle-creek.com/magic_pop...s/cockpit3.jpg

(Rick Durden) wrote in message om...
John,

Why do I wonder whether the overhead in the Piper's was motivated by
marketing folks who thought they looked cool and didn't have the
faintest inkling of the research that had been done that concluded
they were not a good thing to put in an airplane.....


All the best,
Rick


Rick, I suspect that did have something to do with it but on the other
hand, I like a lot of things about the new Piper panel, including a
centralized (and apparently) organized annunciator panel. AND tons of
real estate for a good switch panel to be relocated to.

To the gentleman from the NJ Civil Air Patrol, thank you very much for
the pictures and the write-up about the Airvan.

I still pick AirVan as my favorite panel and I will close by wishing
all on the groups a very merry Christmas.

best to all of you

John Pelchat