Glass cockpit hard to read

On Oct 6, 6:10 pm, wrote:
On Oct 6, 2:35 pm, Arno wrote:





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

Take a look at the speed tape on the 777. The tape itself gives you
the course rate of change, while the window gives you the fine
resolution changes with the 1's place on the airspace as a sliding
digit. The Airbus doesn't give you that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oops, typo, make that "coarse rate of change"

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

writes:

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.

True for the avionics on large airliners, no doubt, but was the same effort
put into the glass cockpits one finds on small aircraft? It sure doesn't look
like it sometimes.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

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.

True for the avionics on large airliners, no doubt, but was the same
effort put into the glass cockpits one finds on small aircraft? It
sure doesn't look like it sometimes.


How would you know?

you don't fly them and you never will.

Bertie

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)

On Oct 6, 8:21 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?

I'm not sure what a computer scientist does but I'm a software
engineer with multiple patents, etc which I assume is similar. The
transitioning to teaching in glass was almost effortless to me.
Reading airspeed from a tape is much easier because you can also see
trends easier. The only hard part is to accept the fact that you're
not going to fly at 1,000 feet, it may be 1,005 or 995. On an analog
gauge we don't notice the difference but it can be frustrating getting
used to the difference when its right there to see.

-Robert, CFII, FITS trained Technically Advanced Aircraft instructor.

I'm not sure what a computer scientist does but I'm a software
engineer with multiple patents, etc which I assume is similar. The

My English is not native, I guess I should say software developer.

transitioning to teaching in glass was almost effortless to me.
Reading airspeed from a tape is much easier because you can also see
trends easier. The only hard part is to accept the fact that you're
not going to fly at 1,000 feet, it may be 1,005 or 995. On an analog
gauge we don't notice the difference but it can be frustrating getting
used to the difference when its right there to see.

My real problem is that the tape always looks the same. Squint your
eyes and tell me your speed or altitude. You can with gauges because
you still have a rough idea what a certain hand positon means. You
can't with tapes, because whether 1000 feet higher or 20 knots faster,
it looks pretty much the same. The difference is only in the numbers.

Arno

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:21:27 -0000, 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 had the same problem at first, but as others have said it's just a
matter of practice. It's similar to the transition I made to using the
HUD on my car. With the standard speedometer it's not so much about
reading the number as it is in recognizing the geometry / location of
the needle. With the HUD it takes another few milleseconds to read and
process a displayed number.



Kirk
PPL-ASEL

"Kirk Ellis" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:21:27 -0000, 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 had the same problem at first, but as others have said it's just a
matter of practice. It's similar to the transition I made to using the
HUD on my car. With the standard speedometer it's not so much about
reading the number as it is in recognizing the geometry / location of
the needle. With the HUD it takes another few milleseconds to read and
process a displayed number.



Kirk
PPL-ASEL

In other words, you need to further increase your following distance in
order to read your speedometer--even though it is placed closed to your
normal line of vision.

Actually, a little more following distance might be a good idea for most
drivers, but this is an example of really poor ergonomics--without even
considering the "wait until you wear bifocals" argument.

Peter

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 21:42:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:



In other words, you need to further increase your following distance in
order to read your speedometer--even though it is placed closed to your
normal line of vision.

Actually, a little more following distance might be a good idea for most
drivers, but this is an example of really poor ergonomics--without even
considering the "wait until you wear bifocals" argument.

Peter



I haven't done any ergonomic studies, but it does seem to take a tad
less time for a quick glance at the dash. Still, tailgating is never
an option.

As opposed to a HUD in an aircraft, the practicality of a HUD in a car
is completely lost on me. It displays ther fuel level, and oil
temperatures, but I have to admit I don't see the point. It may be
helpful if your zipping down the interstate at F-18 rotation speeds so
you don't have to take your eyes off the road. But, mostly it's all
about the "coolness" factor.




Kirk
PPL-ASEL