"Peter R." wrote in message


At first I was concerned that this 757 cockpit would be too much of a
distraction, but incredibly it only took a couple of practice flights
to get the feeling I was flying a Cessna 206. The airline yoke felt
amazingly like the responsiveness of a Cessna yoke, thanks to some
excellent reprogramming of the simulator.

I thought the same thing, too. I spent the first few minutes in the sim
trying to figure out if I could squeeze it into my garage or if I'd have to
build out a room in the basement...

During the practice flights, the CFII had me perform some basic air
and VFR pattern work,

You should have seen my face when he asked me to turn *into* the mountain.
"Um, that hill's pretty close. You sure we can make the turn?" "Yes, I want
you familiar with what the terrain looks like in the sim and if you don't
turn soon you *won't* make it."

The researcher told me that in that scenario the aircraft should have
broken out at minimums and that I should have seen the runway to
complete a landing. I again informed him that I didn't see it.
Because this was only a practice flight, he and the CFII agreed that
they would run the ILS approach again, but this time I was to look
much harder for the runway.

hmph. Right.

At the end of each scenario, the researcher would ask me some
questions about other traffic calls I overheard on the simulated ATC
radio (presumably to gauge my workload). He then would hand me a
tablet PC to answer 15 questions about my impressions of workload,
comfort level, etc. during the flight scenario.

That's probably the best use of a TabletPC I've seen, yet. However, I felt
a bit...odd voicing my answers, in addition.

Most of the afternoon simulated instrument approaches ended in a
missed, too. However, the researcher did admit that those were
designed to have weather much lower than DH.

He never told *me* that. He only told me afterwards that I should have been
able to see the runway. Only once in the IMC runs was that the case and
when I did I was already in the midst of initiating a go-around.
Real-world, I'd've asked for another shot.

I stated that flying behind the synthetic vision display PFD during
instrument approaches was *very* nice.

No kidding, it was - especially after flying two hours almost solid IMC to
get there. The remains of what used to be Hurricane Ivan were moving up the
Applachians and a solid wall of Level 3-5 thunderstorms prevented me from
flying home that night. Flying home the next day was even *more* IMC than
the trip down. Boy was I wishing for that SVS PFD!

I did note that for VFR
flying, less was better and there should be a "declutter" option to
remove the terrain and obstacle information from the display on the
most complex PFD.

Yeah, that was my thought, too. He was a bit surprised by my rather quick
"Oh, yes I do!" when he asked if I had any thoughts on the SVS PFD in VFR
scenario. I had to keep reminding myself to look outside and stop trying to
fly the technically perfect approach. Real-world, that could be a b-a-d
situation.

He then asked me if I had any questions. Of the twenty subject pilots
before me, did any of them crash, I asked.

I never crashed, but I absolutely blew the hell out of the ILS-in-IMC
approach using round dials. I was tempted to request another shot, but was
able to (barely!) recover the approach. At one point, I'd've sworn I saw a
lightning flash. The strange thing was, I had to keep adding more and more
power (much more than previous runs) to maintain airspeed/altitude. Later I
found out that the "lightning" was actually the Aztec overtaking me in the
"pattern" due to my slow speed.

Nobody had an idea on the power situation and that was the only time it
occurred. He did mention the simulator sometimes has a "contol lock"-type
situation where it won't respond properly to control inputs.

Two pilots hit the hotels
on the base leg

It was very cool watching the "obstruction block" in the SVS PFD swing by
off my left wing when I couldn't see squat outside the window.

My contribution to this study was now over. As he was showing me the
door, the researcher suddenly stopped and looked at me, then said,
"Now that we are done, I have a confession to make." OH?

"The approach lights were purposely dimmed throughout this experiment
because we wanted to see if you, the instrument rated pilot, would dip
below minimums with this new technology. The FAA is very interested
to see if pilots would be tempted to do something unsafe when behind
these PFDs.

"Of the previous twenty pilots participating so far, only one other
pilot complained about the lack of approach lights and that pilot also
executed a missed at or above DH every flight where marginal
visibility was right at the DH."

Well that explains a lot! He also told me that I should have been able
to see the runway in all the IMC scenarios. My response was "That's fine,
but I'm not pushing MDA/DH in any of *my* flying - fancy PFD or not." I'm
now kinda glad that's on tape.

"Oh, one other question," the researcher stated. "Would you be
interested in coming back around March '05 to participate in the
second phase of this experiment, to be conducted while piloting
NASA's Cessna 206 equipped with these PFDs?" "You bet I would!" I
answered.

"Oh, hell yeah!"

Vid/pics of my trip there and back:
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer/flights.asp#040918

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________