Glass cockpit hard to read

Arno,

Does anyone feel the
same? Am I missing a particular technique?


Many reviewers have mentioned this. It seems to be mostly a mater of
training. Also, setting the respective bugs to the desired value seems
to help most pilots.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

You don't do trig while you're shooting pool and expect to win the game.

You're right, I do geometry. :-))

In article . com,
wrote:

A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
adapt to them.

So do the numbers get bigger or smaller as the tape move down?

john smith wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

You don't do trig while you're shooting pool and expect to win the
game.

You're right, I do geometry. :-))




Nobody can do geometry properly with the required alchohol load to play
pool properly

Bertie

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 6, 9:21 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

You'll get used to it... there is a transition time to go from round
dial to tapes, but once you get used to tapes you will find that they
do have certain advantages. I worked on the 777 EFIS, which used the
tape format, and after several hours in the 777 simulator, the tapes
became as easy to read at a glance as the round dials. It just takes
conditioning your mind to be able to rapidly scan them, and being able
to pick up trend information from the tape motion instead of needle
motion. At least that was my experience.

A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
adapt to them.

Dean

I have never seen the system for the 777, but I did get a look at the low
end equipment at the LSA Expo in Sebring Florida, and felt that what I saw
was pure crap!

It is certainly possible to make a tape motion system that works well, and I
have seen some "physical" versions that I liked when I was an avionics tech
twenty years ago. However, those have a moving needle which moved in
opposition to the moving tape and at a slower rate than the tape. The
result was that the needle gave the coarse indication, at a glance, and the
tape gave the precise measurement when required--and, in the case of a
higher flying aircraft which would require a three needle altimeter, may
have been more intuitive to read.

However, on the implementations that I have seen, the representations of
needles were fixed and the numbers moved on a virtual card or tape. In my
opinion, they were egregeous!

Peter

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
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

Very well said!

Peter

A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
adapt to them.


That's interesting. Do you have any reference of research comparing
various display methods? Tapes for speed and altitude in today's
cockpits are ubiquitous of course. So far I thought it was a case of
someone starting it and others just copying it.

Arno

"Peter Dohm" wrote in news:x1SNi.1432$aa.376
@bignews1.bellsouth.net:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
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

Very well said!


Thenkew

Bertie

Dean,

I just noticed something interesting, looking at pictures of recent
Boeing and Airbus PFDs. For altitude, they are both pretty much the
same, but for the speed tape, Airbus does not have a big number at the
center of the tape but instead the number on top of the tape and just
a thin line at the center. After my experience today I like the Airbus
better because it is less conducive to reading the numbers rather than
"get the picture":

Airbus A340:

http://simflight.nl/users/reviews/CL...nshots/PFD.jpg

Boeing 777:

http://www.meriweather.com/777/fwd/pfd.html

Arno

wrote in message
ups.com...
....

You'll get used to it... there is a transition time to go from round
dial to tapes, but once you get used to tapes you will find that they
do have certain advantages. I worked on the 777 EFIS, which used the
tape format, and after several hours in the 777 simulator, the tapes
became as easy to read at a glance as the round dials. It just takes
conditioning your mind to be able to rapidly scan them, and being able
to pick up trend information from the tape motion instead of needle
motion. At least that was my experience.

A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
adapt to them.

Dean


Hey Dean, the tape systems I've seen have the scale fixed on the display and
the tape that moves up and down the scale appropriately. That is not how the
Garmin system works from what I've seen. The G1000 in the local 182 actually
moves the scale in relation to a fixed pointer that is mid-scale on the
display, so you have to read numbers relative to a pointer instead of
judging a tape marker relative to a fixed scale. This is much more difficult
than the old fixed scale displays, but I don't see how they could cram as
much on the screen as they do if they still used fixed scale depictions.
Those old instruments used the barberpole concept very well and went right
along with the round gages for system monitoring where we would rotate the
gauges in the panel such that "normal" had all needles pointing the same
direction; no interpretation needed unless one of the needles wasn't
pointing like the rest.

In some ways technology has made the panel much less intuitive and more time
consuming. Think about traffic signals - Red means stop, but we could have
just as easily put up a digital display that said "Cross traffic beginning".
Which would be easier for the driver to interpret most quickly?



--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas