Originally Posted by
SASless
Several folks seem to have no problem with the design, function, and handiness of the current systems in use.
HC, on the other hand, does seem to have an issue with at least one system.
Which view is the most correct?
Are all of you on the same page but saying it differently?
The way to answer my questions is to discuss HC's statement of concern.....as he is the one that raised the issue and I am just considering what he is saying.
I suggest one perspective is he is comparing the 225 Displays to the 175's and is suggesting the 175 was a step backwards.
How does the 225 and 175 differ and is the "newer" system less Pilot friendly?
I don't have an issue really, it is just that with the 225 when there was an engine or systems malfunction, the pilot's main screens and thus ability of PM to monitor PF, was unaffected. Not so with the 175. On the other hand the concept in the 175 of there being no need to monitor the systems routinely - they are not routinely displayed - is a good one. In particular that not only does the pilot get a warning when a systems limit is exceeded, he also gets a warning if the trend is for a systems limit to be exceeded in the future, eg a slowly decreasing oil pressure, slowly increasing temperature etc that has yet to breach a limit. As has been said, it does a far better job of monitoring the Ts and Ps than most pilots do!
We are back to the fundamental design concept difference between the French and the US - the former believe all pilots are stupid and best to give them as little information as possible so as to reduce the opportunities for messing up, the latter believe in telling the pilots absolutely everything possible and leaving them to sort it out (after all, they are all descended from Chuck Yeager). I am inclined to go along with the former philosophy!
Obviously the decision to not have a 5th screen was a cost-based one. There is plenty of room for it and when I raised my point with AH originally, it was implied that it would be an option in the future (don't know if that ever transpired). The 175 HMI is great, especially when compared to the competition from Italy and US, my point is only that it could so easily have been even better and that it wasn't I think is partly down to AH's lack of appreciation of the N Sea 2 pilot IFR role. The guys at the factory are more aligned with single pilot VFR.