Aircraft Instruments Vs Car Instruments and readability

[FlightDream111]

I am not a pilot, but an aviation enthusiast. My flight time has been limited to a few hours as a front seat passenger in a Cessna 152 or 172 and handling of the controls for a few moments.


I am however an avid Flight Simulator (student) pilot, using an open source flight simulator called Flight Gear. My favourite flights at the moment are in a Cessna 172p or a Piper PA 28 or the Commanche practicing what I know about flight navigation. It is a rewarding experience to take off, dialing the heading to the autopilot and being able to locate a remote airport and then land. From what I remember the effect of the simulator is quite realistic.


After many years of simulator flying, viewing innumerable cockpit photos and videos, and inspecting actual museum aircraft at close quarters, I am still left with an impression that there is a vast difference in ergonomics between automobile instrument panels and those of aircraft flight instruments.


Obviously pilots are required to go through extensive training, not the least of which is the use of flight instruments. Therefore they are unlikely to encounter any difficulty. For the casual observer, however, the instruments in aircraft, the steam gauges as they are, are confusing, not only in their number but in their haphazard arrangement and general readability or lack thereof as compared to the say the speedometers and tachometers of any recent model automobile.



Could it be that the aircraft flight instrument industry has lagged far behind in ergonomic instrumentation? The new large aircraft, it must be admitted such as the 777 have attractive, highly functional looking instrument flight instrument systems, and cannot be much faulted in my opinion.
If one is to judge from appearances, then, looking at these same steam gauges in light aircraft could it be that except for the new glass cockpits in use, be actually the ergonomic nightmare that they appear to be?


Some obvious ergonomic faults:




Instrument panel set at 90 degrees so the pilot is looking at the gauges at a 30 - 45 degree angle
The ASI is to the left extreme of the pilot
The altimeter is always difficult to read with its three overlapping white colored pointers
The ASI reads from top right down to top left up again, at least the VSI is spared this fate, only indicating up and down.
The RPM gauge is to the extreme right of the cockpit our lower down in the panel
The panels seem excessively high in some aircraft



I would appreciate the pilot’s point of view on these areas – hopefully we could see more ergonomic glass as well as steam gauge instruments in the future like those in automobiles?

[Groundloop]

There is generally nothing "haphazard" about the arrangement of instruments on older aircraft. The basic flight instruments should all follow the standard "T" arrangment.

[perantau]

In the absence of a visible horizon in the front window, the most important instrument is at the T intersection, followed by what's left & right of it and then what's below it. That is intentional.

Even the fancy glass cockpits of modern aircraft incorporate this basic T so that pilots can maintain the same scan sequence.

Cars by & large operate in 2 dimensions, so require less essential instruments.

[BN2A]

Think the problem is more to do with the car... The altimeter in mine is rubbish!!

:yuk:

[Groundloop]

Think the problem is more to do with the car... The altimeter in mine is rubbish!!

You need a GPS!:ok:

[crewmeal]

There are lots of apps around that will 'mimic' aircraft conditions in a car. The free one I use for my iphone is called 'Altimeter' but as it's free and does its job. It tells you the height above sea level and the compass position. Be prepared to be bombarded with ads. It does it's job though.

[dubbleyew eight]

The altimeter is always difficult to read with its three overlapping white colored pointers

as you fly higher the needles separate and are easier to read :E:E:E

[2 sheds]

FlightDream111

You do not seem to have applied much thought or logic before making a definitive statement about "some obvious ergonomic faults." E.g. "The ASI is to the left extreme of the pilot" - so what? I think that you are "flying" your simulator aircraft with the mindset of a car driver.

Equally, how do you arrive at the conclusion that the presentation in a 777 "cannot be much faulted in my opinion"?

May I commend to your attention "The Aircraft Cockpit" by LFE Coombs - report back when you have read it!

2 s

[FlightDream111]

I think that you are "flying" your simulator aircraft with the mindset of a car driver.



That's just one of my points: Is it not easier to make aircraft panels follow the same advanced ergonomics as modern day cars, and will the transition be easier for those who already drive cars before they learn to fly? Would you prefer the ASI to read more like a car speedometer - left to right and tracing a single wide arc ?


I am asking because I do not know how pilots view this.

Equally, how do you arrive at the conclusion that the presentation in a 777 "cannot be much faulted in my opinion"?


Easy -it's my opinion.

May I commend to your attention "The Aircraft Cockpit" by LFE Coombs - report back when you have read it!



Well before that, let me be more specific with my questions.


Those of you who are pilots would you prefer to have 777 PFD staring at you from the instrument panel of your Cessna 172 or Piper PA-28 light plane in place of steam gauges canted helpfully upwards toward? Both in terms of convenience and safety?



Do you find the GA glass displays seem cluttered compared to those of big jets?

[EDMJ]

Is it not easier to make aircraft panels follow the same advanced ergonomics as modern day cars, and will the transition be easier for those who already drive cars before they learn to fly?That question has essentially been answered in post #3.

You don't need any instruments in a car to complete the drive alive, when flying IFR you need quite a few to ensure the same outcome. You don't have to look at any in a particular order either. Most of them don't even have any coolant temperature and/or oil pressure gauges any more either, which leaves a lot of space for "creativity". I fly an aircraft with an engine which is partially liquid cooled. It has to achieve a certain coolant and oil temperature before you start taxying, do I'd need some indication of these parameters. The oil pressure gauge provides vital trend information about the engine's health, so I'f prefer to have that too. And there are many other examples.

Additionally, angling parts of an instrument panel towards the left seat would not please an instructor in the right seat.

While the General Aviation industry could learn a lot from automotive technology (in fact they are probably very well aware of what is going on there, but it's too costly to certify or too heavy), it wouldn't be how to lay an instrument panel or a PFD. Seats, restraint systems, interior panels and engine technology is more likely to spring to mind. And most of it adds weight anyway.

Those of you who are pilots would you prefer to have 777 PFD staring at you from the instrument panel of your Cessna 172 or Piper PA-28 light plane in place of steam gauges canted helpfully upwards toward? Both in terms of convenience and safety? Do you find the GA glass displays seem cluttered compared to those of big jets? Why would I want a "777PFD" when there are plenty of those things around tailored for small aircraft (google "Aspen" and "G1000")? I fly strictly VFR in a C172, so a glass cockpit is overkill for me and I prefer "steam gauges". I also fly 3-axis microlights where I'd be perfectly happy with an ASI only. My flying club has a C172 with steam gauges and one with a Garmin G1000 ("glass cockpit"). I have no intention of flying the latter for VFR only, as I am concerned that it would entice to me spend too much time with my eyes inside the aircraft.

[Dont Hang Up]

I see some rather dismissive posts when the OP made some intelligent observations from a "fresh pair of eyes" (and on the correct forum for a non-professional).

Long exposure may make the T setup seem second nature but it is always worth questioning if it is the ideal. It is noteworthy that HUD's and "glass cockpits" see fit not to imitate the steam gauges but come up with something more integrated, and arguably more ergonomic.

Many, many millions are spend on car ergonomics and not always from the same cost driver that seems to be the imperative of aircraft design. We should be prepared to accept they may have the occasional good idea which may be transferable.

[FlightDream111]

Thank you for your kind words, "Don't Hang Up".

When I mentioned slanting the instruments I meant slanting them up around the horizontal axis only, like the panels of big jets.

Try this: search on Google for the following, select "images" for each , and then compare the indicators you see.

Which ones are easier to read?

Search words:


Speedometer

Vintage Speedometer

Air Speed Indicator

Air Speed Indicator Sopwith Camel


Update: It would appear that I have been somewhat vindicated. In a magazine article I came across the aircraft listed below, if you look at the instrument panel below, you would find that the ASI does read from left to right (like a speedometer). The green and white arcs (which in my opinion should be indicated by a large colored dot) are on the left side of the instrument.

Fläming Air English Site - Our aircraft products (http://www.flaemingair.de/tl/index.php/our-aircraft-products.html)

See photos under FA 01 S Smaragd Ul/Ml Sensing

[RickRavenRumney]

The gauge setup is also to keep your eyes moving from side to side, to outside and back again. that's to keep you from staring at one one gauge for long periods of time and falling asleep or losing spacial reality.

[obgraham]

I think, OP, that if you spent some time in IFR training you would soon learn to appreciate the standard layout of the "big 6" instruments.

In cars, every maker has a different idea of what constitutes the best ergonomics. It changes with the whims of the day. And you don't actually have to have any of the instruments to safely drive your car.

Your survival in IMC depends on the instruments and your ability to process the information they provide. Imagine learning IFR flying in one aircraft, then switching to another the next day. Disaster looms.

[glendalegoon]

dear original poster

you are looking at a computer generated display of the instruments, not the real plane. you mentioned you sat in the passenger seat of the real plane, until you have sat and flown from the pilot's seat, you really have no idea.

instruments are SCANNED and in some ways this is different than READING them. the Tachometer (RPM) is not scanned all the time, especially when PERFORMANCE of the plane is meeting expectations.

Altimeters do take some understanding on how to read. First you see if you are above or below 10,000'. Then above or below 1000' and finally in the hundreds and less. Have you seen the zebra stripe?

The steam gauges are really quite readable and the already mentioned "T" setup is really very good. In most planes built in the last 40 years the T is the Norm. Prior to that it might have been haphazard a bit.

Look at the airspeed indicator. IF it is in the 12 o'clock to 2 o'clock the position the NOSE of the plane is probably "UP". IF it is from the 3 o'clock to 8 o'clock position the nose is level to down. SO as you look at it, you can tell UP or DOWN of the nose in your SCan. (this might be tough to understand)


The instruments are also placed in such a way so as to make you want to LOOK OUT THE WINDSHIELD which in MOST flying is what you should be doing most of the time.

I know some of this doesn't make sense. I mean, who uses the airspeed to judge if the nose is up or down...but it is useful ONCE you understand the plane and you really can't until you have taken some lessons or at least read, "STICK AND RUDDER".

good luck and remember, wiser minds than yours have come up with the instruments!

[OhNoCB]

Instrument panel set at 90 degrees so the pilot is looking at the gauges at a 30 - 45 degree angle

I have genuinely never found this a problem. If they were tilted up a bit I wouldn't complain but I don't see an issue with it now. I would say that the eye line to the main instruments tends to be less than 30-45 degrees in most aircraft (although I am not the tallest)

The ASI is to the left extreme of the pilot

Calling it the extreme left makes it sound like it is way out of view, in fact it is right beside the instrument that (when flying on instruments) you concentrate on the most.

The altimeter is always difficult to read with its three overlapping white colored pointers

This is true, and while you do get used to it I believe it is universally recognised to be an issue. In most aircraft that will often be flying higher than 10,000' they have different altimeters (drum type). In fact in one company I used to work for flying older aircraft for public transport, we had the older 3 point altimeters and had an exemption to fly with them, limited to operations below 10,000'.

The ASI reads from top right down to top left up again, at least the VSI is spared this fate, only indicating up and down.

Depends on the aircraft and as glass panels are becoming more and more common its normally a 'tape' display. I don't see any problem with where the pointer starts and stops, and frankly I always assumed (dangerous I know) that the slow speed was nearest the AI because you would want to focus more attention on airspeed during slow speed regimes, and having the pointer nearest the AI in that regime makes sense to me.

The RPM gauge is to the extreme right of the cockpit our lower down in the panel
The panels seem excessively high in some aircraft

Again this is aircraft dependent but it tends to be further than other instruments because it is less important. Once you have set the pitch and power for a phase of flight it only needs to occasional glance, therefore the more important instruments are better positioned.

[thing]

I have no problem with steam gauges or altimeters for that matter. It's just what you get used to. Glass cockpits, Garmin 1000's and the like look too cluttered to me. There's a whole shipload of information on them that you don't really need when flying VFR, plus, and this is a very important plus, with a steam gauge and pointer you don't read what the pointer says, you look at it's position. You know what it is supposed to look like when everything is normal. This is where glass falls down IMO. Too much stuff in too much detail.

Any time with your head in the cockpit when flying VFR is bad, you need to glance and that should be enough. There seems to be a tendency to make light aircraft look like mini airliners these days and I think a lot of it is to make light aircraft pilots feel that they are flying a mini airliner. What it does is make pilots fiddle with the toys instead of having eyes out of the cockpit. They are still in a SEP probably with an engine that was designed 70 years ago. It's not an A380. Just my opinion obviously.

Flying an IFR approach in bad weather is a different ball game obviously and the instruments you need are right there in front of your eyes where they should be.

Aircraft are aircraft and cars are cars, both with different needs in terms of instrumentation.

[AndrewMcD]

I'm still a low hours PPL student so perhaps coming to this with a fresher pair of eyes than some.

In reality most basic aircraft - and certainly flight school planes - are working off designs that are decades old. In fact in the case of most trainer aircraft the planes themselves are decades old so inevitably the ergonomics are going to look dated - it's because they are!

The reality of it though is that they are highly functional, having key dials in the same relative position means that ingrained scan patterns aren't interrupted. And absolute precision on the instruments is often irrelevant -a glance at your ASI to make sure the needle is roughly at 65kts for landing is enough - if you are indicating at 63 or 67 doesn't really matter as long as attitude is right and a more major fluctuation in speed that would be relevant is easily spotted. I think one of my ground school books also said that analogue dials are faster to read than digital numbers because you don't need to actually "read" them. Lastly tilting the gauges might cause glare from the sun which could be dangerous, by having the instruments flat this isn't an issue.

On a bit of a tangent one of the first questions my FI asked me before my first flight with him was if I played a lot of flight sims and he was relieved when I said no - apparently those who go to a PPL from sims spend all of thier time fixated on the instruments and no time looking outside (which is kind of the point in VFR). They also have a tendency to chase the needle rather than letting the plane fly. Genuinely no offence intended to the OP but I really don't understand why people spend that long on sims or watching videos and don't just go and do the real thing

[darkroomsource]

Actually the "flat" gauges, whether panel or steam, where the pilot is viewing them at an angle is an advantage in most situations.
If the gauges were angled toward the pilot so that they are at a 90 degree angle, there would be more glare. Which is why automobiles have a glare shield over the gauges.
Which begs the question, why not put a glare shield on plane panels?
(some/most do have small glare shields)
It has to do with the size/shape/angle of the windows, the glare shield required would be quite large to cover all the gauges.
There are far more gauges in a plane panel than on a car, so a relatively small glareshield covers the gauges in a car, but compared to the size of the gauges the glare shield is quite large.
For a glare shield in a plane to be the same proportionate size, it would be huge. For example, on my car, the speedometer is about 7cm (3") in diameter, the glare shield is 12cm (5") deep. If I had a glareshield on the plane that covered the 3 gauges deep that are 5cm (2") in diameter (15cm - 6" - not including any space between gauges) it would have to be 24cm (10") deep (numbers and conversion approximate). And even then it would not take into account that the side windows on my car are higher than the gauges, but on many planes this is not the case.

As for the arrangement of the gauges, as already said they're in a standard "T" in modern airplanes (before the 70s it was common for different manufacturers to use different arrangements, even across different models).

There are far more instruments for flying than for driving, and the importance of the instruments is different for flying than for driving.

There are very few "idiot lights" in planes, although there are warning lights that are associated with a gauge. So there are gauges for everything from cylinder head temperature, to altimeter, which are not found in a car.

This "T" puts the most important instruments for instrument flying in an arrangement that is best suited for "scanning" the panel. When flying in instrument conditions, it's most important to keep the wings level, so the central instrument is the artificial horizon. In a car, you don't have to worry about this, so it's not in the car at all.

The air speed indicator, which you are so concerned about being on the far left, is far less important than keeping the wings level. It's used when climbing to ensure the right rate of climb. Otherwise, it's used to confirm that the other gauges are giving you the right information. (if the artificial horizon - I know I'll get corrected on calling it that - shows straight and level and you have established straight and level, but the airspeed is increasing, then you aren't flying straight and level, rather you are descending)

The altimeter is used when reaching the destination altitude, and when descending to an airport to know when to abort the approach, or when to expect certain other indications during an approach, but during normal level flight, it's used to confirm the attitude indicator.

The other instruments in the "T" or right next to the "T", also, are used to confirm, or to identify positioning, or to give headings for navigation.

Then there are all the engine instruments, which are used to establish a particular profile (climb, straight and level, etc.) and otherwise to verify that everything is "OK".

There's much more, and I've simplified things, but generally the attitude indicator is what you spend most of your time looking at (but not staring at) while you scan to the left, then back to the centre, then right, then centre, then down, then centre, every once in a while down and left or down and right, or over to the VOR or NDB or GPS.

As stated above, the best thing to do would be to either have an hour of instruction flying on instruments, or to read a book on instrument flying. This will clarify a lot about how to scan .vs. read instruments, and which ones support which other ones, and which ones are primary or secondary for which type of manouver.

[thing]

apparently those who go to a PPL from sims spend all of thier time fixated on the instruments

I'm told by flying instructors that this is a problem with some high time commercial pilots too who have just retired or who fancy getting some 'proper' stick and rudder time in. No reflection on them but if you've flown IFR for the last forty years it can be a bit of a sea change to actually look out the window 99.9% of the time.

[FlightDream111]

Back to this thread after some time.

The suggestion that GA displays are cluttered seem to be supported by this report:

NTSB Glass Cockpits Vs Conventional No Better Safety Record (http://avstop.com/news_march_2010/ntsb_glass_cockpits_vs_conventional_no_better_safety_record. htm)

Also here:

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/glass-cockpits-provide-no-safety-benefit-study-says

As "thing" said :

This is where glass falls down IMO. Too much stuff in too much detail.

I will comment on the other posts later.

[AerocatS2A]

The report says that glass cockpits are correlated with more accidents which seems to go against your original post.

[NutLoose]

Instrument panel set at 90 degrees so the pilot is looking at the gauges at a 30 - 45 degree angle




the Wessex had its angled because of that

[stilton]

Every transport aircraft I have flown had it's main instrument panel canted towards the pilots.

[FlightDream111]

Comments on the replies received so far:

2 sheds:
May I commend to your attention "The Aircraft Cockpit" by LFE Coombs - report back when you have read it!

I purchased the book on Kindle and read it - it is more of a history of aircraft ergonomics than a study, however very interesting how early aircraft controls were set up.

EDMJ:
Why would I want a "777PFD" when there are plenty of those things around tailored for small aircraft (google "Aspen" and "G1000")?

Just google also 777PFD and compare what you see - which is less cluttered?

Evolution 2000 | Products | Aspen Avionics (http://www.aspenavionics.com/products/general-aviation/evolution-2000/)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Garmin_G1000_Diamond_DA-42.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_cockpit#/media/File:Airbus_A380_cockpit.jpg

(could not find a clearer picture from public domain sites)

I personally find the first two cluttered, confusing to read and tiring.

OhNoCB:

OP: The altimeter is always difficult to read with its three overlapping white colored pointers


This is true, and while you do get used to it I believe it is universally recognised to be an issue.

Well yes, the point is no that it was found to be confusing in use, but that from the first day of use, and at the design stages, it should have been found to be confusing and an alternate design should have been adopted.

Even today, following a 'design for use' and 'user friendly' goals in designing instruments could reduce much confusion. My impression is that the automobile instruments have been improved not only due to customer demand but the frequent changes to the designs - with each year's model. Putting aside any user considerations, aircraft components tend to take longer to be redesigned and aircraft tend to stay in service longer.

AndrewMcD is right when he says:

In reality most basic aircraft - and certainly flight school planes - are working off designs that are decades old. In fact in the case of most trainer aircraft the planes themselves are decades old so inevitably the ergonomics are going to look dated - it's because they are!

darkroomsource makes the point about glare from angled instruments and instrument panels, this may be the case:

So to summarize, have quick look at these automotive and aircraft instruments indicating speed only:

ASI:
Airspeed indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_indicator#/media/File:FAA-8083-3A_Fig_12-1.PNG)

Speedometer
Speedometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedometer#/media/File:Ford_Mondeo_MK3_ST220_-_Speedometer_(light).jpg)

In terms of readability - size, colors, lighting, letter and numeric fonts I would say the speedometer is easier to read.

Compare also the electronic flight display here:

Electronic flight instrument system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_flight_instrument_system#/media/File:Primary_Flight_Display.svg)

Which one do you find easier to read?

That done, I may just design my own panel (on the sim) and put it up here for comments.

[FlightDream111]

The report says that glass cockpits are correlated with more accidents which seems to go against your original post.

Well I agree that they are more cluttered and difficult to read.

If they were developed by a software company the interface may have looked different.

[Wirbelsturm]

You want cluttered and haphazard have a look in the front of the FRS1 Harrier.

That bl**dy thing was a nightmare!!!! If the HUD went down you could only rely on the main artificial horizon, trying to scan the rest was next to impossible!

Lookout and fly visually!

:}:E

[FlightDream111]

You mean like this one?

Airfix 1:24 BAe Sea Harrier FRS-1 - Page 2 - International Scale Modeller (http://www.intscalemodeller.com/viewtopic.php?t=6748&start=10)

The GR3 and the FRS mk1, both have unimaginable instrument panels, what were they thinking?

Let's see what the Spitfire panels were like - did they go backwards?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Spitfire_cockpit.jpg

Seems better without that big scope in the middle. I guess the problem lies in the design process? Not enough pilot involvement? No process for continuous improvement?

[Wirbelsturm]

You mean like this one?

Yep, that's the one.

You could fly straight and level, well just about, as long as the pegasus didn't start mucking about! :-)

Happy days. :ok:

[oldpax]

While in the RAF I worked briefly on Comets (transit Ksar)and in one c..kpit the captain had a nut hanging on a bit of string ,said it was useful and the only inst that woudnt fail!!!! I suppose it was the same as the artificial horizon!

[AerocatS2A]

Just google also 777PFD and compare what you see - which is less cluttered?

Evolution 2000 | Products | Aspen Avionics (http://www.aspenavionics.com/products/general-aviation/evolution-2000/)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Garmin_G1000_Diamond_DA-42.jpg

Glass cockpit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_cockpit#/media/File:Airbus_A380_cockpit.jpg)

(could not find a clearer picture from public domain sites)

I personally find the first two cluttered, confusing to read and tiring.

In your original post you complained about the analogue gauges, how they weren't in very good positions, and you felt the gauges themselves don't present their information very well. As a point of reference you said the 777 PFD was much better. Well, all those GA glass cockpits, the G1000, Evolution 2000 etc, are the result of taking what people like about an airline cockpit and applying it to a GA cockpit. It is basically what you were asking for. The result is apparently more crashes (exactly why that is so is up for debate I guess.) What I take from that is that the old analogue gauges were just fine, or at least that upgrading what are mainly VFR aircraft with instrumentation with a strong IFR pedigree is not necessarily a step in the right direction.

Well yes, the point is no that it was found to be confusing in use, but that from the first day of use, and at the design stages, it should have been found to be confusing and an alternate design should have been adopted.

Even today, following a 'design for use' and 'user friendly' goals in designing instruments could reduce much confusion. My impression is that the automobile instruments have been improved not only due to customer demand but the frequent changes to the designs - with each year's model. Putting aside any user considerations, aircraft components tend to take longer to be redesigned and aircraft tend to stay in service longer.

At the design stages of the altimeter it was probably the best they could do with the technology they had at the time. And there have been continual improvements since then.

There have been general improvements to instrument presentation on GA aircraft. Like automotive instrumentation it has been driven by changes in technology and consumer demand. The Garmin 1000 style of GA glass cockpit is the result of that process.



So to summarize, have quick look at these automotive and aircraft instruments indicating speed only:

ASI:
Airspeed indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_indicator#/media/File:FAA-8083-3A_Fig_12-1.PNG)

Speedometer
Speedometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedometer#/media/File:Ford_Mondeo_MK3_ST220_-_Speedometer_(light).jpg)

In terms of readability - size, colors, lighting, letter and numeric fonts I would say the speedometer is easier to read.

Contrary to what you say (that I have bolded), these instruments do not display just speed. The automotive one does, but the airspeed indicator has airspeed in MPH, airspeed in knots, and a window for inputting temperature in order to calculate true airspeed which is displayed in its own scale for an appropriate portion of the instrument. There is also markings for the flap up stalling speed, the flap down stalling speed, the maximum flap extended speed, the normal operating speed range, the smooth air only speed range, and the never exceed speed.

It seems that while I was writing this, both links now go to slightly different pictures of instruments. To be clear I was referring to the Aston Martin GIF, and the ASI presented below:

Speedometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedometer#/media/File:Animated_Aston_Martin_Speedometer.gif)
Airspeed indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_indicator#/media/File:True_airspeed_indicator.svg)

Go ahead and design an airspeed indicator that looks like the Aston Martin one but that has all of the information available on the air speed indicator. I think you will very quickly lose the simplicity of the Aston Martin design.

If you'd prefer to talk about the instruments currently linked from your post, first I disagree, there is nothing inherently better about the Ford Fondeo speedo compared to the ASI. Also it is easy enough to find simple ASI designs. The following is very easy to read and includes a Mach display, a dynamic max operating indicator, and an air speed indicator. It also includes adjustable bugs for setting the various reference speeds for a take-off and landing.

Airspeed indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_indicator#/media/File:Airspeed_indicator_DC-10.jpg)

Compare also the electronic flight display here:

Electronic flight instrument system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_flight_instrument_system#/media/File:Primary_Flight_Display.svg)

Which one do you find easier to read?

They all present different information and can't be compared. If you want to talk only about the speed tape part of the PFD, well there are pros and cons to the speed tape presentation as opposed to a traditional ASI. On the pro side, it displays a lot of information in a relatively uncluttered way, it can show a trend vector to show how much you are accelerating, and it can show a much more precise speed than a mechanical ASI. The downside is that it is more difficult to get an immediate sense of your approximate speed with a quick glance, it requires you to read and interpret the numbers, you also can't see all of the bugged speeds at once as some of them are off the scale at any one time, finally there is an issue with the speed tape and altimeter tape combination that can give the impression of pitch and roll movements based on the scrolling of the tapes.

That done, I may just design my own panel (on the sim) and put it up here for comments.

I'd be interested to see the results.

I regularly use the following types of air speed indicator. Which do you think I prefer, and why?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/57942579/Screenshot%202015-05-23%2010.19.46.png
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/57942579/Screenshot%202015-05-23%2010.20.14.png
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/57942579/Screenshot%202015-05-23%2010.22.20.png

[FlightDream111]

I had to post this one:

Bell Unveils Single-screen V-280 Cockpit | Defense News: Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2015-05-21/bell-unveils-single-screen-v-280-cockpit)

"Perhaps the giant display’s most impressive ability is to integrate data from the PDAS to provide a giant outside window with synthetic vision during limited or zero-visibility situations. “It’s basically the same as looking outside. That is definitely where we are headed with this display,” "

This is not the cockpit display I had in mind to design, but will it work? :confused:

Why not have LCDs instead of windows and show simulated scenery based on position? (Like Flight Simulator). Perpertual VFR.

More images:

http://www.miltechmag.com/2015/03/bell-helicopter-unveils-v-280-single.html

Will reply to other posts later.

[AerocatS2A]

I had to post this one:

Bell Unveils Single-screen V-280 Cockpit | Defense News: Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2015-05-21/bell-unveils-single-screen-v-280-cockpit)

This is not the cockpit display I had in mind to design, but will it work? :confused:Nobody knows, they will have to test it and find out.

Why not have LCDs instead of windows and show simulated scenery based on position? (Like Flight Simulator). Perpertual VFR.

Lets see. So you want to spend a heap of money to replace windows with something that simulates windows? You know, generally, if you have the real thing available, you just use it. It's like, if I had a B737 and a B737 simulator, and the B737 simulator is more expensive to run than the real B737, why would I ever considered using the simulator?

[Exnomad]

One chap I used to woirk with had installed an ASI and artificial horizon in his car.

[thing]

I have SkyDemon on my iPhone and often switch it on in the car for a lark. It's brilliant busting airspace and getting away with it.

To the OP; I can't quite work out what sort of flying you do on the sim, are you flying heavy jets or light aircraft or a combination of both? You mention switching the autopilot on; very few light aircraft have an autopilot. I fly a reasonable selection of types and only one of them has an autopilot, and that is more of an unusual attitude generator than an autopilot...:). I leave it off unless I want to amuse myself with it's attempts to fly anywhere but where I want to go.

Flying light aircraft is a completely different ball game to flying a big jet, apart from the obvious dynamic differences. You should be able to cope with a complete instrument failure in a light aircraft and still be able to land safely. The ASI does give you airspeed but so does the sound of the slipstream, the weird and wonderful noises that different vents and intakes on the aircraft make at certain speeds and how the controls feel. I don't need an altimeter to land VFR, no qualified pilot does, you do it by looking out the window. You fly mostly by feel and the picture out of the window looking right. You get none of this on a flight sim. I'm not knocking flight sims by the way, they are good fun but do they recreate the sensations of flight? Well no, how can they?

Edit: Having seen the money, time and effort that some people put into their sim rigs they probably spend more on simming than I do flying. Each to their own though.

[FlightDream111]

AerocatS2A

Well, all those GA glass cockpits, the G1000, Evolution 2000 etc, are the result of taking what people like about an airline cockpit and applying it to a GA cockpit.

Well the GA ones are hugely cluttered and not like the ones on an airliner, in my opinion. I dread the thought of having to navigate those in turbulence or at night but that's just an opinion. Maybe that is what is causing the problem.

I accept your comments about what is easier to read, after all you are speaking from expereince.

I regularly use the following types of air speed indicator. Which do you think I prefer, and why?

From what you have said it seems you prefer the round one with bugs - but that one is from a light twin , not from a jet , I think.

[FlightDream111]

To the OP; I can't quite work out what sort of flying you do on the sim, are you flying heavy jets or light aircraft or a combination of both?

Just a note I have been up in several light aircraft - C152, 172, Piper Arrow, oh and a few stalls in the 152 as well. I have handled the controls as well as far as I remeber they were very heavy and sloppy at the same time.

OK on the sim - C172, PA24 (My favourite fast cruiser), Twin Otter, and Dash 8 -300. Wow I sound like a real pilot. The heavy jets I have not in any way mastered yet.

You mention switching the autopilot on; very few light aircraft have an autopilot. I fly a reasonable selection of types and only one of them has an autopilot, and that is more of an unusual attitude generator than an autopilot.... I leave it off unless I want to amuse myself with it's attempts to fly anywhere but where I want to go.

The C172 has an autopilot as well as the PA24. It's of course again classically non-intuitive, switch it on and there are several identical buttons that change between HDG, RDL and the vertical speed automatically captures the current vertical speed you are at.

Ah here it is : Bendix/King KAP140 Autopilot - FlightGear wiki (http://wiki.flightgear.org/Bendix/King_KAP140_Autopilot)

Flying light aircraft is a completely different ball game to flying a big jet, apart from the obvious dynamic differences. You should be able to cope with a complete instrument failure in a light aircraft and still be able to land safely. The ASI does give you airspeed but so does the sound of the slipstream, the weird and wonderful noises that different vents and intakes on the aircraft make at certain speeds and how the controls feel. I don't need an altimeter to land VFR, no qualified pilot does, you do it by looking out the window. You fly mostly by feel and the picture out of the window looking right. You get none of this on a flight sim. I'm not knocking flight sims by the way, they are good fun but do they recreate the sensations of flight? Well no, how can they?

I admit flying the sim is completely usuited to 'flying by looking outside'. Maybe VR Glassses are the way to go. Virtual Reality. Might give me vertigo, though.

Edit: Having seen the money, time and effort that some people put into their sim rigs they probably spend more on simming than I do flying. Each to their own though.

It's not out of reach financially then, not for me either, however there is the risk, which will not be discussed here.

Suffice to say, the older you are, the less risk you want to take. I mean would accompany a friend pilot in a single engined plane over snow capped mountains .. did it once, long time ago.

[FlightDream111]

Here is an aircraft cockpit that looks more like a car: the Icon

I like it, now, what do you pilots think?

http://www.viezine.com/vie/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ICON-A5-Aircraft-Interior.jpg

:hmm:

Also, more information here about cockpit design:

Cockpit Design and Human Factors - AviationKnowledge (http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:cockpit-design-and-human-factors)

[AerocatS2A]

Here is an aircraft cockpit that looks more like a car: the Icon

I like it, now, what do you pilots think?

http://www.viezine.com/vie/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ICON-A5-Aircraft-Interior.jpg

I like it too. But it's only good for VFR and seems to have a fixed pitch prop. If you want to fly it IFR you'd need to find space for an HSI, a VSI, and a turn coordinator or second AH. Upgrade the engine and you need space for a manifold pressure gauge. Suddenly the nice clean design becomes cluttered and starts to look more like a traditional cockpit layout.

[FlightDream111]

I didn't notice the lack of VSI on the ICON panel.

Let's see if I have got this right - light aircraft are flown mostly VFR, that is, looking outside like when driving a car. One may look at the speedometer to see how fast one is going, or the fuel gauge, but the rest is visual. A striking example of this was a recent Red Bull Air Race crash in which the pilot says 'I broke my own rule and looked into the turn' I take it he lost his visual reference: in any case he banked past vertical and levelled the wings just in time to crash into the water. Fast ailerons on that thing. He was using any of the instruments, I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adilson_Kindlemann

IFR is like driving your car in a fog? Quite unnerving. I remember being in a commercial airliner in a night flight and there was no way of telling where we were or what way the wings or nose was pointing, granted there were not many possiblities, but it was very unsettling.

Since in IFR all you have are your instruments. This is where I would guess they should be nice and large and easy to read.

Take a look at this syntheric vision panel. Nice and large, however the numerals seem too small, and not striking enough. My other contention is that a curved dial is easier to 'place' than a straight up and down ribbon readout as seen here. For example for the ASI readout on the left side of the display.

http://www.aviationnews.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Gulfstream-PlaneView-cockpit.jpg

[FlightDream111]

Transparent LCD cockpit window with Synthetic Vision?


LG shows off 18-inch flexible, transparent OLED display - SlashGear (http://www.slashgear.com/lg-shows-off-18-inch-flexible-transparent-oled-display-10336924/)

These are flexible, so replace aircraft windows with these and project whatever, flight data, synthetic vision, Infrared visuals. Like a large, color Head Up Display.

The image of the outside world in this picture for example, could be replaced by a synthetic vision version : imagine the lake and mountains is just a digital image and not really the outside world. A lot of area to project flight instrument data as well.

http://aviafilms.com/photos/boeing-cockpit-view.jpg

It could also display movies for pilots on long haul flights...:rolleyes:

[AerocatS2A]

Why? What benefit is there in replacing windows with a screen that replicates a window?

[FlightDream111]

Why? What benefit is there in replacing windows with a screen that replicates a window?

The screen is a transparent window, since these are transparent LCDs.

However, in IFR conditions, when all you see outside is white or black or grey for that matter, the LCD 'window' will be switched on, and it will display:

1) Infrared visuals such as in the video here:

Gulfstream Aerospace - Technology - Vision Systems (http://www.gulfstream.com/technology/vision-systems)

2) Synthetic Vision display

Windowless cockpits have been suggested.

Airbus patents windowless cockpit that would increase pilots' field of view (http://www.gizmag.com/windowless-cockpit-airbus/32816/)

What I am suggesting is a hybrid windowed/windowless cockpit. Of course your operating manual will have to cover failure modes and all that.

[FlightDream111]

Anyone following this line of thought may find this useful.

Glass Panels Vs Steam Gauges..?? [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-478737.html)

[FlightDream111]

The readability of need gauges has been discussed before. This display shows the traditional steam gauges in digital format, easier to read, but with the advantages of digital displays.

https://www.gulfcoastavionics.com/products/3970-skyview-touch-d-1000t.aspx

I find it much easier to quickly sight the needle pointer, easier than some of the other more common EFIS. Not sure if everyone thinks so.

[EEngr]

A couple of observations about ASI styles (reference post #31):

The 'steam boiler' style gauge can give a quick estimate of speed based on position around the dial. Whatever you are used to, (automotive with zero on the left or aircraft with zero at 12 or 1 o'clock) a quick glance at the pointer position gives you an idea where you are at. Speed tapes(bottom) and odometer style mach readouts (middle) require reading and interpreting a numeric value.

One question: In the top figure (2.7.1), how do you interpret Mach number? I assume the Mach dial rotates to compensate for OAT and places the current Mach next to the corresponding IAS. The single pointer would then indicate both Knots IAS and Mach. Correct?

[ddoth]

For your point about car speedos starting at the left and working around clockwise - the old ASIs, I only know they were in older Pipers, had the same thing.
Mind you, the gauges themselves were everywhere with a drum type compass.
There may be a reason as to why it changed from that to a uniform, zero up the top - rotate clockwise ASI.

With anything, if you actually use it for long enough it becomes the way it should.

[Denti]

The screen is a transparent window, since these are transparent LCDs.

However, in IFR conditions, when all you see outside is white or black or grey for that matter, the LCD 'window' will be switched on, and it will display:

What you describe is basically an augmented reality system. Those are in development right now and are usually based on glasses, not on covering all windows with transparent screens. Check out · Aero Glass (http://glass.aero/) for example although that is build for GA and based on traditional EFIS symbology.

[AerocatS2A]

One question: In the top figure (2.7.1), how do you interpret Mach number? I assume the Mach dial rotates to compensate for OAT and places the current Mach next to the corresponding IAS. The single pointer would then indicate both Knots IAS and Mach. Correct?

Yes, that's correct.

[FlightDream111]

That Aeroglass looks fascinating.


More in line with the discussion title- suppose a company comes up with an instrument that is very easy to read, like modern car instruments - it has to go through certification, and that will add to its cost? Better keep the older one? Not sure how certification costs add up.

[FlightDream111]

This paper discusses car speedometers throughout the years.

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1555&context=hss_pubs


Two interesting points :

1. There were some speedometers with zero at top right as in the 'modern' ASI

(Page 10, 1928 Mercedes-Benz 540 k)

2. This design is said to be counter-intuitive since increase in speed results in 'downward' movement of the pointer

(Page 23 3rd Paragraph)