(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