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