Glass cockpit hard to read

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

How would you know?

I'm a licensed and very experienced driver with some extra training. That
kind of credential seems to impress pilots with respect to airlines, so it
should work the same magic for cars ... right?

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.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

How would you know?

I'm a licensed and very experienced driver with some extra training.


Bull****.



That kind of credential seems to impress pilots with respect to
airlines, so it should work the same magic for cars ... right?


You could get an astronaut rating and it wouldn't impress me.

Fjukwit.


Bertie

Union Thug writes:

The biggest difference between steam and digital is the amount of
information you can display is much greater with digital. Take the
speed tape for example, you get minimum and maximum values just like
steam, but you can also get flap speeds, manuvering speeds for each
flap setting, trend indications, trend vectoring, etc. You can display
much more information on a modern glass PFD and ND than you ever could
on an old school panel.

Being able to display more doesn't mean that the pilot uses or needs more, and
sometimes finding the needed information in a display system that provides
information overload can take too long for safety.

Some manufacturers are better than others, but
once you are used to these glass systems, you will find the hardest
thing is to fly an old school panel again.

That would depend on their design. I think that goal is achieved to a large
extent with the most evolved and expensive systems used on commercial
transports, but I cannot say the same for the small and cheap systems used on
private small aircraft.

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

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Union Thug writes:

The biggest difference between steam and digital is the amount of
information you can display is much greater with digital. Take the
speed tape for example, you get minimum and maximum values just like
steam, but you can also get flap speeds, manuvering speeds for each
flap setting, trend indications, trend vectoring, etc. You can
display much more information on a modern glass PFD and ND than you
ever could on an old school panel.

Being able to display more doesn't mean that the pilot uses or needs
more, and sometimes finding the needed information in a display system
that provides information overload can take too long for safety.

Some manufacturers are better than others, but
once you are used to these glass systems, you will find the hardest
thing is to fly an old school panel again.

That would depend on their design. I think that goal is achieved to a
large extent with the most evolved and expensive systems used on
commercial transports, but I cannot say the same for the small and
cheap systems used on private small aircraft.


You can't say anything fjukkwit


You don;'t fly and you don't know anything about flying.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

You could get an astronaut rating and it wouldn't impress me.

I'm not sure why I would want to impress you.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

You could get an astronaut rating and it wouldn't impress me.

I'm not sure why I would want to impress you.




I don't either, but you seem to feel the need to.

Bertie

"Mxsmanic" wrote ..
Union Thug writes:


Hello MX, long time no see ;-)

This reminds me of the discussions in rec.photo.digital around 2002. So are
you still regarding film as superior to digital as you did then?

The biggest difference between steam and digital is the amount of
information you can display is much greater with digital. Take the
speed tape for example, you get minimum and maximum values just like
steam, but you can also get flap speeds, manuvering speeds for each
flap setting, trend indications, trend vectoring, etc. You can display
much more information on a modern glass PFD and ND than you ever could
on an old school panel.

Being able to display more doesn't mean that the pilot uses or needs more,
and
sometimes finding the needed information in a display system that provides
information overload can take too long for safety.


Then you must prefer performing your flight simulation with the B747-100
over the B747-400, right?

In my personal experience, I much prefer looking up the needed information
(example: approach crosswind component) from the glass panel, even if it
takes three seconds, than having to compute it in my head or on paper or
with E6B. Which method might be safer and more accurate?

That said, sometimes even the most basic steam gauges are quite capable of
generating information overload ;-)

Some manufacturers are better than others, but
once you are used to these glass systems, you will find the hardest
thing is to fly an old school panel again.

That would depend on their design. I think that goal is achieved to a
large
extent with the most evolved and expensive systems used on commercial
transports, but I cannot say the same for the small and cheap systems used
on
private small aircraft.

For once, I have to partly agree. There is still improvement potential in
the user interfaces. However, compared to mechanical gauges it's no contest
..