hello
I think it is a wrong approach to want to change instruments. We've saddly lost the first SF34 in ZRH because of this you're trying to tell me?
I think that you're trying to solve the "how" this happened while you should try to fix the "why".
But for heck of it ...I hate this in cockpits:
A) Clicking. Easy,787, 380, 777, E145,E170...Never heard about touch screens like in jet fighters? Why do I need to see Windows like menu in an aircraft.
B) FAULT lights with partial system working. Is this thing working or not????
C) Poor audio radio quality. Should be digital (less fatigue) with auto frequency switching
D) Control laws: Too complicated and there are always exceptions. Why? The engineer will give you 10x10000 reasons why, but he's not flying the thing.
E) Virtual MCDU keyboards.
F) Limitations. Do not operate the gear if pressure is below 1450 PSI. Do I care? No, I need to raise of lower the drag generator. End of story. Fadec can compute several parameters per second but I still need to keep an eye on the oil pressure when starting the engines. Thanks automation.
G) Switches versus push buttons. I prefer flush, pushed in for normal, LED bulbs. Green= Works ON. Red = failed stopped operation. Not lit = OFF.
H) Flap handle. Should be kept for backup only and a new logic incorporated in speed modes allowing flaps extension for slowing down. EGPWS will yell at you TOO LOOW GEAR/FLAPS but no piece of automation here...still manually have to lower the gear. Even 3 radio altimeters not sufficent to tell that we can safely raise the gear automatically. We have auto slats but no auto flaps.
I) Garmin 1000 on VFR (mainly) machines. So you have to operate VFR while spending most of your time punching buttons head down on the displays of a single pilot operated machine? Watch the other guy.
J) 0/0 capabilities. Engineering dream. How do I taxi if I cannot legally rely on the moving map of my EFB?
K) Airbus controls (stick and throttles) not showing movements.
L) Pure engineering concepts. 'Kmon have you ever seen a concept car commercially available? No, that's why it is called a concept. Concept and practical don't go along (use is practical but manufacturing is nightmare).
If you're french and born in Blagnac then you can understand Crew Operating Manual. (How to operate the crew right?). If you're from KBFI then you can understand Aircraft Operating Manual (How to operate the ship).
M) Vertical speed mode. This thing is on since 800 BC on ships and no one came up with something smooth.
N) HF radio. Yeah, I still have my 56k modem for surfing the web!
I love:
A) EVS, HUD
B) EICAS/ECAM message auto arrange
C) OEI auto pop up for SID, Climb...
D) TAC on 777
E) Antiskid (everybody thinks it is granted like on cars. Remember 40 years ago...)
F) Wx radar mapping by FL.
G) FANS, ADS, Satcom...
H) Electronic checklist
I) EFBs vs laptops.
To conclude:
The why vs the how...
It is very complicated for a pilot to write down a robust spec to an engineer.
It is very easy for the engineer to implement the IF ...CONDITION then ACTION from the spec, but it is awfully complicated to write a ELSE if nothing is given in the spec. Most of the problems are coming for this missing statement (unspecified). And it is getting worse because of commercial pressure( shorter coding, testing, integration, robustness test time), more and more combination of conditions are remaining untested or deliberately put into the class "unlikely to occur".
"This failed because these conditions where never tested". "This plane crashed because pilot was tired". You would like to design something that will tell a tired pilot he's making a mistake but next thing management will ask is to have our flight duty extended and fly with more fatigue.
I do beleive that making these 2 worlds (Engineers/Pilots) "talking" together is an art. I love to write sequencers in C versus "Cool" realtime applications in Java with embedded windows XP. But between you and me: KISS (Keep It Stupid & Simple).