![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Phil wrote in news:1191732077.235895.295410
@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: On Oct 6, 1:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Phil wrote in news:1191696116.820241.83540@ 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com: On Oct 6, 10:21 am, Arno wrote: Hello, I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like "speed at 3 o'clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the same? Am I missing a particular technique? Arno I am a fellow computer geek, and a student pilot. I usually fly a plane with steam gauges, but a couple of times now I have flown with digital displays. Like you, I found it a little hard to adjust to the digital displays. The digital displays I was using presented altitude and tachometer values simply as numbers. The analog displays I am used to present these values as positions on a dial, showing the current value in its context of a spectrum of values. With the analog displays, I am used to adjusting the position of the pointer. With the digital display, I need to simply set the correct numerical value. It's a little mental adjustment, and given that I am a newbie to all this it is an extra distraction. But, I do think that it is mostly a matter of what you are used to. Flying is a right hand brain activity. At least the handling portion is. The right hand side of the brain dosn't do abstractions like numbers, at least not until the left hand side (which can't fly worth a ****) sends it over to the right side in a readily digestable form which enables the right brain to chew it into a picture. An analogue display cuts the left hand side out of the loop and enables the calcualtion rate to increase the right sides "frame rate" so that corrections can be made more frequently thus enabling the pilot to fly the airplane more smooothly and with more authority. Caorse rule of thumb math can be laid over this for descent angles, interceptin angles and wo on, but generally, the fewer numbers involved, the better. People who prefer the numbers usualy don't fly very well at all. You don't do trig while you're shooting pool and expect to win the game. Bertie- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - As I understand it, the whole right-brain left-brain thing has pretty much been discredited. The more recent research shows that any complex task engages both sides of the brain. I don't think there were too many neuroscientists who ever embraced the idea that one side does "art" and the other side does "math" anyway. Well, it's a simplification, but I have had cause to chat with some neurosurgeons in the recent past over a protracted period and they still seem to think it's pretty much still the way it works. anyone who has ever known a stroke victim know that if the left side gets zapped they can lose the power of speech altogether, for instance. (no, my own brain was not invovlved) Found this anyway http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A659874 I think the biggest difference between steam gauges and digital displays is that steam gauges give you a value in context of a spectrum of values. When you look at a analog tachometer, you can see the where the needle is compared to the minimum and maximum values. If you are trying to set 75% power, it might be useful to have the information presented that way, because you can see where 3/4 of the range is. Same with airspeed. You can see how close you are to the red arc, where you are in the green arc, etc. Yes, I agree and is pretty much what I was trying to say. Your brain picks this up in the same language it's doing the flying job in. You don't have to convert a bunch of numbers to a mental picture of what's going on, The rate the needles move, their angle, the way they quiver and dance as they pick up what's going on, all give subtle information in a form that's easy to digest On the other hand, why would you want to see altitude displayed with needles? If I want to fly at a specific altitude, I am looking for a number, not a position in a range. I think the traditional altimeter was made the way it was because it was the easiest way to get a mechanical instrument to display the information that way, not because it was the easiest way to digest the information. Yeah, another god point. trad altimiters aren't great that way, but you do get used to them. Sill, if you have a tape only, you have to read the numbers... Ideally, every instrument should be designed to convey the appropriate information in a way that is conducive to how that information is going to be used. If you just need a value, then a digital display of a number make sense. If you need to have a sense of where you are relative to minimum and maximum, then a display showing relative position in a range should be used. The nice thing about a computerized display is it can be set up to display the information either way. Well, not in the things I fly! They pretty much give you what has been decided for you. One thing I positivley loath on some modern EFIS displays is the "track up" option on the nav screen. For those not fmailiar, basicallly the DG function puts our actual ground track on the lubber line and has a bug to indicate your heading. This is the reverse of the traditional display where the heading is on the lubber line and if you have some sort of RNAV comouter giving info your track is displayed by a bug. It's OK when you are motoring along enroute, but if you arent used to it, shooting an approach is a nightmare. Adherents of track up say that it is actually easier, but it isn't if you are used to the old way. doing an NDB appraoch, for instance, all you need to do is put the track on the lubber line and the ADF needle should stay glued to the inbound track, but if you have to constantly remind yourself to do the oppostie of what you are used to it can be an absolute nightmare to do by hand. If we did NDB appraoches every day of the week it wouldn't be a problem, but I've done one in anger in the last five years and the rest are all in the sim. Even weirder, the newer airbusses use a speed reference system that uses groundspeed on the approach. so, you set your Vref and the airplane automatically raises it to accomodate a headwind by flying a constant ground speed. (or advising you to fly faster by pushing the speed bug up) It's simple, but interferes with the pilot's direct communications with the wing. I suppose I'm trying to say it's translating for you and somethng is always lost in the translation.. But don't mind me, I wish the 75 had flying wires so I could hear them sing to me.. Bertie |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 7, 4:55 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Phil wrote in news:1191732077.235895.295410 @w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: Ideally, every instrument should be designed to convey the appropriate information in a way that is conducive to how that information is going to be used. If you just need a value, then a digital display of a number make sense. If you need to have a sense of where you are relative to minimum and maximum, then a display showing relative position in a range should be used. The nice thing about a computerized display is it can be set up to display the information either way. Well, not in the things I fly! They pretty much give you what has been decided for you. Sorry, I wasn't very clear there. What I meant was the designer of the computer display can program the pixels to convey the information either way. The display can show simply a number, or it can show a graphical representation of a range of values with a pointer to show the current position in the range. Right now you are stuck with whatever the designer chose for you, but as EFIS becomes more common and more sophisticated, it is very possible that it will be re- configurable by the pilot. I doubt that it will ever be completely flexible where you can get it to display any way you want, but I can imagine that there might be a selection of four or five different ways to display an instrument, and you can pick which one you like. One thing I positivley loath on some modern EFIS displays is the "track up" option on the nav screen. For those not fmailiar, basicallly the DG function puts our actual ground track on the lubber line and has a bug to indicate your heading. This is the reverse of the traditional display where the heading is on the lubber line and if you have some sort of RNAV comouter giving info your track is displayed by a bug. It's OK when you are motoring along enroute, but if you arent used to it, shooting an approach is a nightmare. Adherents of track up say that it is actually easier, but it isn't if you are used to the old way. doing an NDB appraoch, for instance, all you need to do is put the track on the lubber line and the ADF needle should stay glued to the inbound track, but if you have to constantly remind yourself to do the oppostie of what you are used to it can be an absolute nightmare to do by hand. If we did NDB appraoches every day of the week it wouldn't be a problem, but I've done one in anger in the last five years and the rest are all in the sim. That makes me wonder how the designers of EFIS displays choose their designs. Are the designs based on research or are they just the personal preferences of the designer? Hopefully there is some kind of objective research used to choose a display pattern that is easiest to use. Of course, that raises the whole issue of testing displays. Who do you get to test them? If you use pilots who have been flying analog gauges for years, you are probably going to find that they want EFIS displays that are like the analog instruments. But those displays may not actually be the optimal way for the brain to digest the information. It makes me think about the keyboard I am using to type this. It was designed back in the days of manual typewriters. Because manual typewriters tended to jam if you tried to type too fast, the keyboard was arranged to slow the typist down. So we are all using a keyboard that forces us to type more slowly than we could with an optimal keyboard. The Dvorak keyboard was designed to eliminate this problem. But hardly anyone uses it because we have all been taught to type on the old QWERTY keyboard. Even weirder, the newer airbusses use a speed reference system that uses groundspeed on the approach. so, you set your Vref and the airplane automatically raises it to accomodate a headwind by flying a constant ground speed. (or advising you to fly faster by pushing the speed bug up) It's simple, but interferes with the pilot's direct communications with the wing. I suppose I'm trying to say it's translating for you and somethng is always lost in the translation.. I understand what you are saying. In the software world, designers try to make each new release more "helpful" than the last. Sometimes this is good, but mostly I just find it annoying. The software tries to guess what you intend to do, and do it for you. If it guesses right, that's fine. But it seems like it mostly guesses wrong, and then you just have to un-do what it did. That's not an improvement. I wish they would put more time into designing simple, intuitive user interfaces so I can more easily tell the program what I want it to do. That way the program doesn't have to guess. But don't mind me, I wish the 75 had flying wires so I could hear them sing to me.. Maybe some EFIS designer can set up the option to have the airspeed converted to a flying wire sound and played in your headset. :-) Phil |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Phil writes:
That makes me wonder how the designers of EFIS displays choose their designs. Are the designs based on research or are they just the personal preferences of the designer? My guess is that the expensive commercial stuff in airliners is the product of fairly extensive studies into ergonomy, whereas the inexpensive stuff sold for small aircraft has not been subjected to that kind of study, since it's not required for certification and it's very expensive. That's why the inexpensive stuff looks so much more like a video game and so much less like a cockpit. So we are all using a keyboard that forces us to type more slowly than we could with an optimal keyboard. The Dvorak keyboard was designed to eliminate this problem. But hardly anyone uses it because we have all been taught to type on the old QWERTY keyboard. The most recent studies I've seen on the Dvorak indicate that it actually isn't any faster than a QWERTY keyboard. It turns out that the brain adapts very well to whatever layout is used, and quickly gets up to speed. More evidence of this can be seen in the way some people type on their Blackberries or cell phones. I understand what you are saying. In the software world, designers try to make each new release more "helpful" than the last. Sometimes this is good, but mostly I just find it annoying. The problem is that it can be deadly in aviation, and not just annoying. Airbus is a classic example of the software-developer syndrome. The software tries to guess what you intend to do, and do it for you. If it guesses right, that's fine. But it seems like it mostly guesses wrong, and then you just have to un-do what it did. That's not an improvement. Especially if it doesn't allow you to un-do anything. This is a serious problem even in ordinary office automation software, but it's much worse in safety-of-life software. I recall a study done by Microsoft that showed that a great many people who ask for new features for the Office product are actually asking for things that are already there ... they just don't have any way of finding them in the bloated mess that Office has become. For this reason, I don't use Office--I spend more time trying to prevent it from doing things I don't want it to do than I spend accomplishing anything productive. I wish they would put more time into designing simple, intuitive user interfaces so I can more easily tell the program what I want it to do. That way the program doesn't have to guess. It's extremely difficult and expensive to design such interfaces. And often the goal is simply to add features to encourage sales and upgrades, and nobody really cares about the ergonomy. As I've said, I see signs of this in the low-end glass cockpits. Unfortunately it diminishes safety. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote in
: Phil writes: That makes me wonder how the designers of EFIS displays choose their designs. Are the designs based on research or are they just the personal preferences of the designer? My guess is that the expensive commercial stuff in airliners is the product of fairly extensive studies into ergonomy, whereas the inexpensive stuff sold for small aircraft has not been subjected to that kind of study, since it's not required for certification and it's very expensive. That's why the inexpensive stuff looks so much more like a video game and so much less like a cockpit. So we are all using a keyboard that forces us to type more slowly than we could with an optimal keyboard. The Dvorak keyboard was designed to eliminate this problem. But hardly anyone uses it because we have all been taught to type on the old QWERTY keyboard. The most recent studies I've seen on the Dvorak indicate that it actually isn't any faster than a QWERTY keyboard. It turns out that the brain adapts very well to whatever layout is used, and quickly gets up to speed. More evidence of this can be seen in the way some people type on their Blackberries or cell phones. I understand what you are saying. In the software world, designers try to make each new release more "helpful" than the last. Sometimes this is good, but mostly I just find it annoying. The problem is that it can be deadly in aviation, and not just annoying. Airbus is a classic example of the software-developer syndrome. The software tries to guess what you intend to do, and do it for you. If it guesses right, that's fine. But it seems like it mostly guesses wrong, and then you just have to un-do what it did. That's not an improvement. Especially if it doesn't allow you to un-do anything. This is a serious problem even in ordinary office automation software, but it's much worse in safety-of-life software. I recall a study done by Microsoft that showed that a great many people who ask for new features for the Office product are actually asking for things that are already there ... they just don't have any way of finding them in the bloated mess that Office has become. For this reason, I don't use Office--I spend more time trying to prevent it from doing things I don't want it to do than I spend accomplishing anything productive. I wish they would put more time into designing simple, intuitive user interfaces so I can more easily tell the program what I want it to do. That way the program doesn't have to guess. It's extremely difficult and expensive to design such interfaces. And often the goal is simply to add features to encourage sales and upgrades, and nobody really cares about the ergonomy. As I've said, I see signs of this in the low-end glass cockpits. Unfortunately it diminishes safety. You have no idea what it does. you don't fly, fjukkwit Bertie |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
To all: Be advised that mxsmanic (Anthony Atkielski) is not a pilot and
never has been one. In fact he has never flown in a small plane at all, or been at the controls of anything other than a game. He certainly doesn't know anything about avionics. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
To be clear, my original complaint was not about screens in general,
but rather the way they are being used. I think the holy grail of how to represent flight information has not yet been found. Designing a good user interface is more art than science, as any computer programmer knows. Imagine we had open source cockpit software. It could run on actual plane hardware and also on simulators, so you would have the whole sim community writing cockpit software. And aircraft owners could download whatever new software is out there and try it out (on a sunny day at an uncontrolled airport:-))The FAA would probably have a fit, but the EAA somehow managed to convince us that homebuilts are safe, so merely writing software for perfectly airworthy planes can't be so bad. Arno |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:54:18 -0500, "Viperdoc"
wrote: To all: Be advised that mxsmanic (Anthony Atkielski) is not a pilot and never has been HIWAS for USENET. G |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Phil wrote in
oups.com: On Oct 7, 4:55 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Phil wrote in news:1191732077.235895.295410 @w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: Ideally, every instrument should be designed to convey the appropriate information in a way that is conducive to how that information is going to be used. If you just need a value, then a digital display of a number make sense. If you need to have a sense of where you are relative to minimum and maximum, then a display showing relative position in a range should be used. The nice thing about a computerized display is it can be set up to display the information either way. Well, not in the things I fly! They pretty much give you what has been decided for you. Sorry, I wasn't very clear there. What I meant was the designer of the computer display can program the pixels to convey the information either way. The display can show simply a number, or it can show a graphical representation of a range of values with a pointer to show the current position in the range. Right now you are stuck with whatever the designer chose for you, but as EFIS becomes more common and more sophisticated, it is very possible that it will be re- configurable by the pilot. I doubt that it will ever be completely flexible where you can get it to display any way you want, but I can imagine that there might be a selection of four or five different ways to display an instrument, and you can pick which one you like. Nah, i knew what you meant, I just meant that means nothng to us. we get what we get! The exception is th nav screen where we can select traditional HSI type dispays which is useful sometimes, but mostly we stay in map mode. The operator can choose what kind of display is used to some extent. The track up thing is an operator choice (by operator I mean the airline) mine chose track up but the traditional display is available as well. That makes me wonder how the designers of EFIS displays choose their designs. Are the designs based on research or are they just the personal preferences of the designer? Hopefully there is some kind of objective research used to choose a display pattern that is easiest to use. Of course, that raises the whole issue of testing displays. Who do you get to test them? If you use pilots who have been flying analog gauges for years, you are probably going to find that they want EFIS displays that are like the analog instruments. But those displays may not actually be the optimal way for the brain to digest the information. It makes me think about the keyboard I am using to type this. It was designed back in the days of manual typewriters. Because manual typewriters tended to jam if you tried to type too fast, the keyboard was arranged to slow the typist down. So we are all using a keyboard that forces us to type more slowly than we could with an optimal keyboard. The Dvorak keyboard was designed to eliminate this problem. But hardly anyone uses it because we have all been taught to type on the old QWERTY keyboard. Exactly Even weirder, the newer airbusses use a speed reference system that uses groundspeed on the approach. so, you set your Vref and the airplane automatically raises it to accomodate a headwind by flying a constant ground speed. (or advising you to fly faster by pushing the speed bug up) It's simple, but interferes with the pilot's direct communications with the wing. I suppose I'm trying to say it's translating for you and somethng is always lost in the translation.. I understand what you are saying. In the software world, designers try to make each new release more "helpful" than the last. Sometimes this is good, but mostly I just find it annoying. The software tries to guess what you intend to do, and do it for you. If it guesses right, that's fine. But it seems like it mostly guesses wrong, and then you just have to un-do what it did. That's not an improvement. I wish they would put more time into designing simple, intuitive user interfaces so I can more easily tell the program what I want it to do. That way the program doesn't have to guess. But don't mind me, I wish the 75 had flying wires so I could hear them sing to me.. Maybe some EFIS designer can set up the option to have the airspeed converted to a flying wire sound and played in your headset. :-) It's been done! Well, almost. Some MD80 types have an engine noise generator to aid the crew in hand flying approaches. Bertie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OSH Homerun? Glass Cockpit for the Budget-Challenged | Marco Leon | Piloting | 4 | July 27th 07 11:27 PM |
winter is hard. | Bruce Greef | Soaring | 2 | July 3rd 06 06:31 AM |
Why Not Use PC To Make Glass Cockpit? | Le Chaud Lapin | Instrument Flight Rules | 52 | July 19th 05 03:45 AM |
It ain't that hard | Gregg Ballou | Soaring | 8 | March 23rd 05 01:18 AM |
Glass Cockpit in Older Planes | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 2 | May 20th 04 01:20 AM |