GPS vs ADF

Michael wrote:

Some people refer to IFR GPS as "flexible," meaning it can do many
different things. Some refer to is as "a frustrating piece of crap,"
because they find it so hard to make it do any one particular thing. I
find that the user interfaces on GPS units are very intuitive and
obvious - as long as you have a graduate degree in engineering and
several years experience working with computerized instrumentation.
Describing IFR GPS as flexible is a lot like saying a drowning victim
has moist skin. It's technically true, but you're not impressed.

x

Some folks with a lot of professional flying experience find some of
this stuff quite flexible and useful. Sure don't have to be an
engineer. But, it is sure equipment specific. I am proficient in the
use of the Garmin 530 but that took some time.

I wouldn't even attempt to use any other panel mount without a similar
amount of learning and practice. I also find using the 530 in a single
pilot environment without an autopilot to be a excessive knob twisting,
bad human-factors situation.

Sam Spade wrote:
Some folks with a lot of professional flying experience find some of
this stuff quite flexible and useful.

And I do as well.

Sure don't have to be an engineer.

I'm not sure that's true. I find that those without an engineering
background find it counterintuitive and need a lot of time to get used
to it. At least that has been my experience teaching people to use
their 430's, 530's, etc.

But, it is sure equipment specific. I am proficient in the
use of the Garmin 530 but that took some time.

How much time did it take to become proficient in the use of other
navigation equipment, once the basic instrument rating was attained?

I wouldn't even attempt to use any other panel mount without a similar
amount of learning and practice.

Which took how long? I've heard estimates in the 10-40 hour range.

I also find using the 530 in a single
pilot environment without an autopilot to be a excessive knob twisting,
bad human-factors situation.

So let's see. You find that you need a significant amount of learning
and practice to use one particular make of GPS, that much of this won't
carry over to another make, and that even after you have learned to use
it, the workload required to use it single pilot without autopilot to
be excessive. I'm not surprised.

I find it to be quite flexible and useful, and without those caveats -
I find the workload of a 530 to be quite low, and the learning curve to
be quite short. Of course I have a graduate degree in engineering and
significant experience designing and using computerized equipment.

It didn't have to be that way. If it were up to me, GPS approaches
would be designed the same way as on-field VOR-DME approaches without a
FAF. You have the MAP/holding fix and a radial. You select the MAP,
put the unit in OBS mode, select the radial, and fly the standard
approach with PT in a manner familiar to every instrument rating holder
out there. If you need stepdown fixes, you add them. The interface to
the essential unit functionality could thus be standard and familiar.
But it wasn't done that way.

Michael

Michael wrote:

I'm not sure that's true. I find that those without an engineering
background find it counterintuitive and need a lot of time to get used
to it. At least that has been my experience teaching people to use
their 430's, 530's, etc.


What was the average age of the person you were teaching?

B A R R Y wrote:
I'm not sure that's true. I find that those without an engineering
background find it counterintuitive and need a lot of time to get used
to it. At least that has been my experience teaching people to use
their 430's, 530's, etc.

What was the average age of the person you were teaching?

About average for the pilot-owner. That is to say, maybe 45.

Younger people always learn faster.

The interesting thing is that the ones who did have significant
relevant experience (I'm thinking a couple of engineers here) got it
instantly. The others needed a lot of work.

Michael

Michael wrote:
B A R R Y wrote:
I'm not sure that's true. I find that those without an engineering
background find it counterintuitive and need a lot of time to get used
to it. At least that has been my experience teaching people to use
their 430's, 530's, etc.
What was the average age of the person you were teaching?

About average for the pilot-owner. That is to say, maybe 45.

Younger people always learn faster.

I wasn't so much leaning that way, but more toward the video game
generation and folks who don't know the "old" way.

I teach technicians how to use high-tech test gear, and the folks who
have all kinds of experience with analog gear covered with discrete
switches always take longer to learn than the "new" folks, even though
the more experienced folks understand what they're testing and why.

I find that the older folks often try to relate the new device back to
the old tools, while the younger ones don't have anything to relate to,
so they accept things at face value. After modifying the teaching
method to NOT relate as much to the older methods, I find the more
experienced folks learning much faster.

Michael wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

Some folks with a lot of professional flying experience find some of
this stuff quite flexible and useful.


And I do as well.


Sure don't have to be an engineer.


I'm not sure that's true. I find that those without an engineering
background find it counterintuitive and need a lot of time to get used
to it. At least that has been my experience teaching people to use
their 430's, 530's, etc.


But, it is sure equipment specific. I am proficient in the
use of the Garmin 530 but that took some time.


How much time did it take to become proficient in the use of other
navigation equipment, once the basic instrument rating was attained?

Well, I got my instrument rating in 1958. ;-)


I wouldn't even attempt to use any other panel mount without a similar
amount of learning and practice.


Which took how long? I've heard estimates in the 10-40 hour range.

Around 10 hours using the Garmin trainer integrated with MSFS.


I also find using the 530 in a single
pilot environment without an autopilot to be a excessive knob twisting,
bad human-factors situation.


So let's see. You find that you need a significant amount of learning
and practice to use one particular make of GPS, that much of this won't
carry over to another make, and that even after you have learned to use
it, the workload required to use it single pilot without autopilot to
be excessive. I'm not surprised.

Yes, I am a retired airline pilot who, after a lot of early G/A
experience, got used to a far better human-factors environment in
airline flight operations.

I find it to be quite flexible and useful, and without those caveats -
I find the workload of a 530 to be quite low, and the learning curve to
be quite short. Of course I have a graduate degree in engineering and
significant experience designing and using computerized equipment.

A lot of it has to do with a trained mind that could be in disciplines
other than engineering.

It didn't have to be that way. If it were up to me, GPS approaches
would be designed the same way as on-field VOR-DME approaches without a
FAF. You have the MAP/holding fix and a radial. You select the MAP,
put the unit in OBS mode, select the radial, and fly the standard
approach with PT in a manner familiar to every instrument rating holder
out there. If you need stepdown fixes, you add them. The interface to
the essential unit functionality could thus be standard and familiar.
But it wasn't done that way.

You are thinking too much in light aircraft terms. All this stuff is
designed for the airlines, who own the FAA.

Michael,

I find that those without an engineering
background find it counterintuitive and need a lot of time to get used
to it.


If I may: So what? Who says things in life have to be easy or
"intuitive"? A GPS does very complex things. So it is complex to use. Is
any of those people you teach really of the opinion that a CDI or an ADF
are more "intutitive" than a moving map? Yeah, right...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
I find that those without an engineering
background find it counterintuitive and need a lot of time to get used
to it.

If I may: So what? Who says things in life have to be easy or
"intuitive"?

Wow, you sound like an engineer.

Who says it has to be easy or intuitive? Well, the customer. He's the
one who matters. In the software industry (at least the successful
parts of it) software is tested by intended end-users. When the
software doesn't behave the way they expect, you don't retrain them -
you rewrite the software. Of course the developers always bitch about
this, but it's not a grey area. The customers are right and the
developers are wrong. Unfortunately, in this FAA-driven environment,
the customer doesn't matter.

A GPS does very complex things. So it is complex to use.

I said the same thing when I was told to make the doppler non-invasive
flowmeter simple to use. I was told that it wasn't acceptable, and to
make it easy to use. Seven years later, it's still the industry
leader. You CAN make a device that does complex things easy and
intuitive to use. It's just a lot of work.

Is
any of those people you teach really of the opinion that a CDI or an ADF
are more "intutitive" than a moving map? Yeah, right...

Yes. They are. But not to an engineer.

Michael

Michael,

Wow, you sound like an engineer.

Not quite.


Unfortunately, in this FAA-driven environment,
the customer doesn't matter.

You got that right.

You CAN make a device that does complex things easy and
intuitive to use. It's just a lot of work.

Yes, within limits. What I was trying to get at was that indeed many people
complain about very complex things being, well, complex. I tried to point
out that such is life - and that's what makes it so exciting. I feel there's
a trend to "dumb down" things in an increasingly complex world. And I'm not
a fan of that. I'm not trying to make excuses for bad interface design, not
at all. But in my experience, there are limits to what you can do in that
arena. Also, things simply change. To expect everything to remain the same
in life without any new stuff coming in is, well, not very smart.


Is
any of those people you teach really of the opinion that a CDI or an ADF
are more "intutitive" than a moving map? Yeah, right...

Yes. They are. But not to an engineer.

Excuse me, but that's just not true. Anyone who has gone through instrument
training will tell you that an ADF is anything but intuitive. It's just
something a pilot may be more used to, that's all.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

What I was trying to get at was that indeed many people
complain about very complex things being, well, complex.

The problem is when things are =unnecessarily= complex. This often
results from attempting to impose an inappropriate paradigm on the user
interface, or from some limitations on the hardware, or from an
ill-conceived idea of what "complex" means. (I have an answering
machine that has just one button. It is a pain in the ass to use. The
one that has ten buttons is lots simpler. Each button does one thing.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.