Flight Director options

[swissangel]

Has anybody a presentation or a list of advantages of crosspointer flightdirectors over V-bar type flightdirectors,

I have to convince my pilots to change from V-bar type to the crosspointers, as widely spread in the airline industry.

[RAFAT]

My answer is don't change. We use crossbars, and having used V-bars in the past they're much much better. Crossbars have a tendancy to cause over-controlling when flying manually.

I believe crossbars are not that widely used.

[BOAC]

Personal preference - I agree with RAFAT - but that is progress :confused:

[GGV]

In my experience the system people prefer, and wish to defend against all others, is the one on which they were first trained. It is quite difficult to get people to change their minds about these opinions.

Both systems are only the means to an end, so nobody should take it all too seriously. But this does not help you with the resistance issue.... all I can say is try to avoid having the first trainess "bad-mouthing" the new system to the others! Take it slowly...

[Hudson]

Take every opportunity to switch off the FD and practice basic raw data flying. You need to be 100% competent at both FD and raw data handling skills. You will never be confident and competent as an instrument pilot until you have a good fast instrument scan - and that will never happen if you rely totally on the FD for guidance.

[Say Mach Number]

My first commercial airliner had the V-Bar and as an intro to the uses of using FDs the V-Bar was great. Very simple to use, easy to understand and interpret.

However having moved onto something a little bigger and more flash and having used crosspointers on this for over 6 years reckon they are far better. More accurate and once you get the hang of it give better all round picture.

IMHO

[Final 3 Greens]

swissangel

I am not a professional pilot, so I will not waste your time with my limited comprehension of flight directors.

However, as a day job, I do help people to successfully change their employees behaviours, so I hope that the following classic advice I was given many years ago may help you in your endeavours.....

Firstly, acknowledge the good points of the old system, don't pass it off as being poor, if it was not. Explain why the change is necessary.

Secondly, put the old and new into context .... get some really good examples from pilots such as Say Mach Number that support the move to the new system.

Thirdly, build on the things that are not changing - what procedures and instruments will stay the same?

Fourthly, don't punish people for sharing their concerns - they will feel uncomfortable changing from a well tried and tested instrument..... all your training to date has been reinforcing the V bar system and now you are creating cognitive dissonance by moving away from that .... let people be open and honest, but always gently reinforce the positives and make it clear that reversion is not an option.

I wish you the very best outcome.

[Waspy]

I personally agree 100% with Hudson. I was taught to fly in the Air Force and amazed to see how some pilots - 100% airliner experience - have difficulties in controlling the A/C when FD's are switched off but ALSO and most important, too keep a general picture when flying, even with FD's on (AP& AThr off). They tend to forget about the horizon (AI) behind and most basic flight instruments at all. If FD's were asking to fly inverted, they would!
One typical example: FD's are sometimes slow to show a final turn order to intercept the LOC==> overshoot!

We use Vbars on our fleet. Having flown with both, these are the pro's/con's I find in both:

Vbars: better general picture versus the AI but less accuracy if attention is not focussed on the Vbar wingtips (2° bank error not always noticeable)

Xbars: less general picture if AI not used as MAIN reference and bars to finetune. When flown properly, Xbars are much more precise (1° heading diff on the loc shows an offset)

Bottom line, fly the AI and finetune with FD's, not the opposite...!

[411A]

Cross bars or Vee bars, an age old ah...discussion.
Sperry started it all of course, with the Zero Reader, used in many 4-engine piston (and a few turboprop) airliners, with good results.

I have personally found that the cross bar design is far more accurate for low visibility approaches...CAT II/III.

Otherwise, 6 of one, half dozen of another.:}

[FE Hoppy]

and one of something else.
FPA and guidance cue.
.
-O-
-<>-

[JackOffallTrades]

I would have to agree with Say Mach Number. I use Xbars and find them more accurate. However I have only used Vbars in the sim and instantly wanted to turn them off! After a small amount of practice I felt I could follow them ok but didn`t find the end result much more accurate than my raw data.

FPV -o- (birdie) I find very enjoyable to use and quite instinctive, but with the FPD turned on I start to get confused! Yes I have a small brain.

Any form of Flight Director is no substitute for knowing your attitudes. By the way is Flight Director a term used in the US or Canada for the Cabin Service Director/Purser/No. 1 CA?

:8

[411A]

It used to be, on Continental Airlines, many years ago...that is, until on one flight to PHNL, when the 'Flight Director' got a bit full of himself, and the Captain got word of this.

So, the skipper calls the 'Flight Director' up to the flight deck, and asks him...'do you know just where the nose of the aeroplane is?'

FD says..." wellllll, (in best Jack Benny style), of course I know where the nose is, silly."

The Captain, now getting a bit peeved, says..."just to be sure, move right up forward, right over the glareshield.'

The FD does as he is told, and says...'yes Captain, I see the nose.'

Captain:
Do you know where the white light is, on the tail?

FD:
Yes, Captain, know where the white tail light is'.

Captain:
Good.
Understand that everything in between belongs to ME, make no mistake...now get back and do your job.

An absolutely true story.

[JackOffallTrades]

CRM Rules!

I take it this Flight Director needed putting in their place then!

[FLCH]

After Flight Directors came "DPS's" at CAL what a load of bollocks !! Same thing, different stupidity...

[Charles Darwin]

I have personally found that the cross bar design is far more accurate for low visibility approaches...CAT II/III.

Why would you need f/d for approaches that are never handflown? Does anybody handfly a low vis app?
On the other hand, my experience tells me that v-bars are more easy to follow (for the idle hands:cool: ) but for more accurate handling, stick to the crossbar. It´s well worth the extra effort.

[411A]

With some air carriers, there is no requirement for using the autopilot...hand flown CAT II approaches are indeed possible (MUST have a flight director available, and used), depending on the certifying authority.
Indeed, in sim training, pilots are regularly checked in hand flying to 100agl.

CAT III of course, is a different story altogether.

[dusk2dawn]

411A, HUD [ with circular Guidance Cue ;) ] are certified on several installations for hand-flown CAT III !

[411A]

Indeed they are, d2d...forgot about those.:O

[mupepe]

I fly HUD hand-flown CAT III , no A/T , profile monitored by F/O through F/D (X bar in this instance) with expanded LOC displayed under the horizon .
great tool allowing us to shoot CATIII on single engine and to take off with 75m RVR.
happy easter.