To all Pilots (Display question)

[hus1uk1]

I am currently undertaking a project at my University, where I am programming some Primary Flight Displays. I would like to gather some initial thoughts from the pilots out there, though PFD's slightly differ in different aircraft, they all follow a standard layout. The main questions I would like to ask at the moment are:

What do you think of the layout of current PFD's ?
If you could change the look or layout in some way, what would it be? (i.e the colour of text or even the fonts)


Please dont worry if its nothing conventional, if you have some crazy concepts that you think could work please feel free to add.


Many thanks

[Coldbear]

Hi,

The Layout comes from the early days - the basic T.

Airspeed on the left - Attitude in the middle - Altilimeter and Vertical Speed on the Right.

Compass of some sort, either HSI or a DG, below the Attitude.

Thats the basic, this can either be as Gyro Instruments or as "Glass" instruments with the source from computers and IRU's.

hope this help,

Martin

[ChristiaanJ]

If you read French, read André Turcat's "Essais et Batailles".

[mrjet]

There was an artical in last weeks Flight International that I thought was very good. I believe it was ALPA that had some suggestions for improvents in the flight displays.

I fly the 737NG. I'm also a trainer and one thing that I see alot is confusion as to what mode the autoflight system is in. The Flight Mode Annunciator, FMA, would give this information. However since some of the buttons on the mode control panel sometimes illuminate to indicate that the mode can deselected, many pilots incorrectly use that as an indication of the mode rather than the FMA.

So what I'm trying to say is that the FMA must be very clear and easy to read. It must be very obvious what mode the AFDS is in and when any changes to the AFDS status occur. There is definitely room for improvement in this area.

Unfortunatelly I don't have a good solution to the problem so I'll leave that one up to you.

[8846]

MrJ

Slightly off topic but our instructors came up with the idea of 'rumours' and 'news', that is to say that whatever button is pressed on the flight mode panel (FMP) it must be confirmed by observation of the ACTUAL mode on the FMA.

They came up with the idea that the illuminated button on the flight mode panel represented 'rumour' and the FMA indication was actual 'news'.

We're a simple lot (well I am!) and that helped to cement the idea in my head and got me used to confirming every selection on the FMA - so much so that I only ever look at the FMP to check the button I'm pressing and then never look at it again.

Thought that might help?

[Dan Winterland]

The layout of current PFDs is historic, has evolved subtley over years from the basic T instrument layout devised by the RAF pre WW2 and is the de-facto display format. Changing it would require additional training and certification and would be considered as a heresy in some circles! The only changes which would possible in the short term are changes to the presentation and display of information.

However, this should not stop the system evolving. The modern PFD is a fussy, sometimes confusing and very fatigueing instrument to intepret. Fatigue of pilots is a safety factor which is going to be a bigger issue in the future, largely due to the improvement of safety in other areas and the increasing trend for airlines to treat Flight Time Limitations as guidlines for everyday use rather than limits for safety.


Having said that, here are a couple of my thoughts for what I would like to see in the future:

Having watched my kids playing a flying game on their games console, I've noticed that they prefer to fly the 'aircraft' using an outside view. In otherwords, they are viewing the aircraft from a position outside and behind so they can see what the aircraft is doing. Of course this enables them to watch cool thing happening like missiles firing, but having been allowed to have a go a couple of times, I also find it very easy to fly in this way. Accuracy would be compromised, but why not incorporate a Flight Path Vector system superimposed on the horizon as used in the Fly By Wire Airbus aircraft? Also, why have the height, speed, heading and VS information? If the aircraft is in some form of managed mode and you are within a few feet/knots/degrees, why not hide the information until certain parameters are exceeded. You would need some sort of trend vector such as the speed trend vector on a conventional PFD.

Also, why is the PFD stuck below the coming below the natural eye line? On the few occaisions I've flown with a HUD (Head Up Display) I've found it to be vastly superior to the conventional heads down dispays.

The main improvement could be with the Nav Display though. When the current crop of modern airliner instruments were certified, Pacman was the cutting edge of gaming technology and these displays are in the same league! You only have to look at what some of the modern business jets have to realise how things could improve in airlines. Things have got better with improvements such as vertical profiles on the NDs of the more modern Airbus FBW displays, but there is huge room for improvement. So, why not have a 3D nav display superimposed on the outside view of the PFD I described above?

This combination display would have an image of the aircraft superimposed on the real terrain on a head up display, maybe even the windsheild. It would have little quantative information, repalcing these with a flight path vector and trend vectors. It would have the navigation track superimposed and landing systems (such as ILS if it still exists) would be a cone you could fly down onto your superimposed runway giving you a very user freindly low vis system. The gear and flaps would appear on your aircraft image, so would airframe anti icing as your leading edges glow red.

The benefits of the above display would be more situational awareness, less pilot fatigue and shorter training times. Think 'outside the box' and play a few computer games!

[Brian Abraham]

Following on from 8846's post.

http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/IHpersonnel/ev/OSU95_Oops/PalmerOops.html

[Checkboard]

Why not change the background colour of the speed tape and altitude tapes when the autothrottle /autopilot is on/off.

Crazy concept: the altitude tape runs down the screen as altitude increases, which is logical. It means that bugged altitudes are higher than the pitch line on the horizon display, so pitching up to meet an altitude bug is intuitive. The speed tape runs in the same sense as the altitude tape, running down the screen with higher speeds at the top - but this results in the bugged speed in the incorrect sense in relation to the pitch line on the horizon display - that is, if you bug a higher speed then the bug is higher on the screen than the pitch line, but if you pitch up to meet the bug (as you do in the altitude case) then you reduce speed - in this way it operates in the incorrect sense. If you reverse the direction of the speed tape, so that it runs up the screen instead of down, then you can "pitch to meet the bug" in both cases.

[E.Z. Flyer]

I'm reading about single pilot rated aircraft, like that of a Cessna Citation properly equipped. Yet, the lingering question on my mind is how if the plane is aptly equipped can the efis be used in a manner that allows the PIC to use both displays? One display dedicated as the Pilot's primary flight system and the other as a guidance system. I expect if the FMS is fully programmed with the flight route, frequencies and so forth, some of that information would serve a pilot well if it could be seen in an advanced staging (look ahead) mode as well.

In short, I would like to see a system that effectively allowed me to program the co-pilots duties and to have a display in place that allowed me to visually track the information. As I see it now. I have a plane equipped for a pilot and a co-pilot, using identical displays. Only, no Co-pilot and still lacking the adaptation to change the co-pilots configuration to better accommodate the extended duties of the PIC.

I think much more can be done as the automation process becomes more integrated and as such, more display area is needed to accurately track the (autonomous) procedures all of the systems are following.

In the instance of a recent Citation reportedly losing an attitude indicator with three onboard, there is certainly a need to revamp the current school of thought of having redundant systems. If the attitude indicator as seen in the EFIS is actually slaved to a micro-processor that is feeding each EFIS, then the one (gyro) attitude indicator is logically used to calibrate the electronic attitude indicators. I would program the (gyro) attitude indicator to light up when a fault is traced to either of the EFIS units.

This would be the starting point of how I would build a display system that was slaved to an electronic system. I would create default paths back to the static/forced ram air systems and as mentioned the (gyro) or (laser) attitude indicators to illuminate when a system fault was detected in conjunction with the warning light system.

Instead of a light that showed the de-ice system was on. I would also want an indicator that detected icing conditions and build-up, so I knew that de-icing has or is taking place.

The entire electronic system would read back to a flight following center in order to track the flight, and to then log the real time performance of the aircraft. In time, the system would be built out much like the internet and offer a WiFi like service at airports where updates to the system could be downloaded or patched, and flight plans could then be determined from such an information system to assist in pre-flight and post-flight ops. When a crew change is made the new crew has up to the minute real time data, or that the owner operated plane is briefed as to the ready state of the flight plan, and systems.

[ssg]

In the Citation Ultra, Primus 1000, you don't worry about the right seat copilot display, as it displays exactly what's on the PIC/Left side.

Case in point, I moved the Jim Hendrix, intermittant flickering of the captain's PFD to the right side, to save the company $20k for a new display. Now it flickers on the right side, not in front of me.

Between the PFD and the MFD, there is a ton of info, plenty of redundancy, and should the PFD go out, I can display that info on the MFD, or the right side PFD..

As far as copilot duties...single pilot there are none...

While these days it might seem standard that a plane is flown in a crew, we all started out flying by ourselves...and just because it's a jet doesn't mean you 'need' a copilot.

[John Farley]

Dan W

Having watched my kids playing a flying game on their games console, I've noticed that they prefer to fly the 'aircraft' using an outside view.

Very interesting. That is how I use the Russian A/H indicators. I just treat the airplane symbol as an outside display of my aircraft. Worked for me like a charm with no training or workup despite a silly number of years using the classic UK type displays.

JF

[Dan Winterland]

Ditto. When using the Russian style AH as a 'big picture' instrument, it makes far more sense.

[speedrestriction]

I quite like the current EFIS set up though I do find that there is not enough space devoted to the IVSI. I find it takes a good half second longer per scan to find the info I'm after compared to the old round dials.

sr

[ITCZ]

The problem with current PFD's is that although they look pretty flash, all they do is represent the same basic T layout that has been used for IF flying for sixty years.

What is the problem with that, you might ask?

Well the problem is, analogue clocks or whizz-bang LCD, the pilot still has to integrate five or more separate sources of information to determine his aircraft's energy state. Forward speed, vertical speed, attitude, altitude, heading/track. Even on the most advanced civil flight decks, it is still left to the pilot to integrate this information.

Look across to the neighbouring Navigation Display (ND) and see the difference. Here just about all the disparate information regarding the aircraft's lateral navigation, is completely integrated. Magenta lines for flight plan track. Waypoints and ground based navaids are shown. Pointers for auto tuned and manually tuned aids giving bearing and distances to/from those selected aids. EGPWS terrain information, Wx RDR returns, TCAS traffic.

Nav Display = highly integrated. A visitor to the flight deck can 'get the picture' very quickly.
PFD = disparate, requires a lot of skill and constant practice for the operator to integrate.

If our mate hus1uk1 really wanted to make a contribution, he could research a new paradigm primary flight display that integrated pitch/roll/speed/heading/vertical speed for the pilot.

Aircraft designers gave up on piston engine powerplants for airliners fifty years ago. Supercharging, 'corn cob' rows of cylinders, power recovery turbines....

........ replaced by a simpler, more reliable, much more scalable gas turbine powerplants.

Time to do the same with primary flight displays.

=========================================

However, if that is a bit beyond the scope of his brief, then I suggest the following:

What sort of display formats are becoming more prevalent in consumer electronics?

Answer: Widescreen 16:9 televisions. Anybody out there quite happy with their 4:3 computer display and telly?

Thats why I think the Garmin G1000 format for primary flight display is a cracker.

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/store/assets/images/products/010-G1000-00/en/sc-03-lg.jpg

Instead of the normal "portrait" orientation attitude display that is maybe 4" wide, here is a display that has bank attitude all the way across the 10"-15" of screen available.

That is a must-have, hus1uk1, me old mate!

[keesje]

Hi I´m not a pilot, but as suggested above it might be worthwhile to look at general aviation cockpits. Less requirements enable people to get a linsense, cockpit designs seem to take that into account. They give a little more design freedom / less space, leading to interresting developments. Again my impression, I´m not a pilot..

http://www.utility-aircraft.com/images/images%2004/cirrus%20SR22%20PFD%20MFD%20GPS.JPG
Cirrus SR22 G2

Also the newest VLJ and the newest militairy cockpits might provide some good ideas..

http://6a.img.v4.skyrock.com/6af/swissfly/pics/300872764_small.jpg
Cessna Mustang VLJ

http://www.hitechweb2.szm.sk/Xtras/cockpit2.jpg
LM JSF with holographic HUD

Militairy technology spins-off to the civil sector. So it could give some info on what is ahead.

[1xxxxx1]

Pilots in general are very conservative and when something works why change it.
And a radical change of display is extremely difficult to implement.

I have been flying with the Chelton/ Sierra System for some time.
It is a highway in the sky, synthetic vision, track vector PFD ; and the way the information is given is far better than all what we use now.
And it makes fun hand flying through the boxes and waypoint rings. Specifically the visual approach as a continues turn towards the runway.

Or you fly the aircraft in a slow flight with power and high nose up pitch and the vector shows it is going down..

On the market since 5 years or longer when taken the experimental aircraft into account.
No real success! Nearly nobody wants it and none of the large manufacturers copies it.
(Besides the Synthetic vision maybe)

A change might come with the symbolic that more HUD will bring.
Or we have to wait that the MS flight Sim generation becoming pilots.

Keep up the good work and look for new ways to design aircraft and avionics, only do not expect that they take off.
I think I have to correct myself, they will take off in UAV’s but the pilot stays on the ground.

[ssg]

I was looking at buying a helicopter...an IFR Helo..with a dead flight director..

I considered one of these little PFD things, SANDEL? Anyway...my goal was to cram as much info into a tiny little screen for the least amount of money.

So there is one type of efficiency to shoot for. Anyone who has worked an MFD understands whether a composite display will work for them or not.

Doesn't make much sense to change everything...best to keep it safe, understandable, but the idea of colors changing, and putting more info on the screen but being able to take it away, if you don't want the clutter, I think, is a good idea.

[EMIT]

To posts 11 and 12.

With regards to the people "liking" the Russian way of presenting attitude: just imagine that display being presented on a HUD with the real world horizon visible - now THAT would surely make a mess!
The attitude indication "western style" is a replica of your real world view through your windscreen, remember that and please inform your kids that the real world is different from what is presented on their game computors.

[John Farley]

EMIT

You mentioned posts 11 and 12.

Where do they say anything about "liking"?

My reading of them is that they were specifically discussing how to deal with a presentation that is different from the one you are used to.

It is worth remembering the past. The advantage of the Russian system was that it enabled a traditional small self contained attitude indicator (artificial horizon) to be topple free in a way that the west could not achieve until we developed the MRG systems of the 60s. Early western jets were a real pain (accident prone) if you got a bit enthusiastic with your manoeuvres above cloud and did not leave enough fuel to be able to fly wings level for the necessary time for the A/H to re-errect so that you could start a descent. This length of time could easilly represent 20% of the total sortie duration in those days.

JF

[richatom]

I agree the Garmin G1000 is a good layout. I wish thought that they had included wind vector and ground track on the HSI. Currently wind vector is on the MFD and ground track is displayed digitally top right of PFD so your scan is scattered.

[EMIT]

To post 19, John Farley.

The word "liking" may not have been mentioned literally, but in post 3, to which post 11 refers, I read
"I also find it very easy to fly in this way."

in post 11
"Worked for me like a charm"

in post 12 (same author as post 3)
""Ditto. When using the Russian style AH as a 'big picture' instrument, it makes far more sense."

Seems to me like a case of "they like it" .

Of course I do not deny their right to like something, but I tried to make clear why the "western style" attitude indication is more natural: the artificial horizon stays parallel to the real horizon and the wing symbols stay parallel to the real wings. In the "Russian" system, looking at an airplane symbol from "behind" the airplane, the artificial horizon stays parallel to the real wings and the artificial wings bank relative to the real wings.

If you are sitting stationary behind a PC and operate the aircraft as a model airplane, the Russian sytem is fine. But as I wrote in my previous post, if you have an outside view from your real world aircraft, in a bank there is a contradiction between the real horizon and the (Russian) artificial horizon.

I do not fight your argument that 40 or 50 years ago technology was not able to provide enough freedom of movement for gyro systems to be free of maneuvre limits. I do not think though that for commercial aviation, those were "limits" as you are expected to remain fairly close to horizontal for safety and passenger comfort.

[Dan Winterland]

I gave the wrong impression. I don't like the Russian AHs, but when I have flown with them, considering the symbology as an outside view of the aircraft seems to make sense more than trying to interpret them as you would the western instrument. I grew up with the western instrument and yes it does make more sense to me.

But it's all about what you trained with. I recall an accident report of an Egyptian 737 which flew into the Red Sea a few years ago. The report considered the Commander's previous experience with the Russian instrument as a factor as they thought he may have reverted to type when things went wrong.

I trained with the Mk1 horizon which would take at least 15 minutes to re-erect when toppled. A RDF letdown on the turn and slip was part of the IRT those days. Tell that to the kids of today, they just don't believe you!

And speaking of kids, mine don't want to be pilots. They just want to get a high score on their 'Ace Combat' game on the PS2. I won't dissapoint them!

[EMIT]

OK Dan, good post.
Interesting reference to the Sharm el Sheikh crash. Would you have a web reference to that report (question mark - I can't find it on the keyboard, sitting in a Spanish speaking country and their keyboard layout is different from plain U.S English, what I have always trained with ....)

Best regards.

[Dan Winterland]

Hi,

Here it is. All 1312 pages of it. Happy reading!

http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2004/su-f040103a/pdf/su-f040103a.pdf

[SOPS]

Ok..I have to ask...never having used one, how is a Russian AH diffrent to a Western one?

[Ka8 Flyer]

On "our" AH's the aircraft symbol (usually a wing-symbol on modern EADIs and PFDs) is stationary and the horizon behind it moves. So during a left turn the horizon will turn right...

The Russians have it the other way around; the horizon is stationary and its the aircraft symbol that is moved. As if you were viewing the aircraft from behind.

I don't know why, but I find the Western approach much more intuitive even though people new to flying find it confusing at first. But whenever I see a picture of an AH in a non-level attitude I always know instantly which way I would move a yoke to level the aircraft - as if it were a reflex.

[SOPS]

ok..I think I see the difference..does it make a difference if "ours" are sky pointers or not (hating to appear stupid):)

[Dusthog]

If you could do it all over again the CDI (Course Deviation Indicator) would
represent the airplane and not the RWY center line.
It´s more natural if the needle moves in the same direction as the airplane
(similar to fly a LLZ Back course).

I guess by now our pilot heads are already twisted.


/Cheers

[Dan Winterland]

Some of us (older pilots!) may remember using the Smith's Flight System, or it's military counterpart -the MFS or Military Flight System. It had a Pitch/Bank pointer instead of an Attitude Indicator. The horizon rotated on a fixed gimbal anf the pich pointer moved up and down a scale which had 18 degrees of up movemet and 9 of down. The compass element was known as a Bearing/Distance/Heading Indicator and the compass card coule be allowed to rotate as normal, or if flying an approach the runway QDM was set at the top and the aircraft heading bug moved round the dial.

If it sounds confusing, it's because it was! No doubt it was the bees knees of instrument design in the late 50s, but it had serious limitations. One being that in the Victor Mk2 where I flew with the thing, the aircraft could easily achieve pitch angles of more than 18 degrees and after that we had to use the ASI to monitor the pitch angle.

I'm not advocating it as a replacement system. It was rubbish! I just though I'd add it into the different systems discussion.

[galaxy flyer]

Dan

God, I thought the MM3 AH on the North American F-100 was prehistoric, it didn't even tumble. And the OCU instructors, cruel as they were, wouldn't have considered a needle, ball and airspeed letdown. I shiver to think of it. Iron men and wooden planes, the RAF. :ok:

Back to the post, check out the Gulfstream website for the new Synthetic Vision Displays, they are the future of integrating the outside view. At least, the bizjet fleet will rapidly moving in that direction over the next 5-10 years.

GF

[airfoilmod]

Am reading some excellent input. Further out, don't be surprised if ATPL's will be wearing headgear with a HUD that stays oriented perfectly and consistently with various combinations of "Bundled" displays in the same position regardless of the direction of the Pilot's gaze. There is no reason to think this format would require much training, and notwithstanding the predictable uproar from Pelicans (guilty) it is a natural, allowing the best of panel scan and outside reference. I've been fortunate to try it, it's an outstanding system.

[hus1uk1]

Thanks for the replies everyone, very fascinating discussion will definately use all of the input. :)

[Brizeguy]

hus1uk1, Have you looked at smartcockpit.com ?

The difference between displays is massive. A "simple" speed tape can have twenty or more different bugs displayed on it. Have a look at the Dassault Falcon 2000DX/EX EASy PFD, the "Extras" are amazing!

[hus1uk1]

Reading now, fantastic link :ok:

[flyboyike]

Slightly off topic but our instructors came up with the idea of 'rumours' and 'news', that is to say that whatever button is pressed on the flight mode panel (FMP) it must be confirmed by observation of the ACTUAL mode on the FMA.


At our airline we apply the same principle to switchlights and EICAS messages. An illuminated switchlight (CONT IGNIT, for instance) is a rumor, but a CONT IGNITION status message on the EICAS is the truth.

[gr8shandini]

I was wondering about the current trend of extending the AI across the entire display ala the G1000. The few times I've flown a system like this, I hated it. It doesn't really provide any info than the already relatively large AI section of most older PFDs and reduces the contrast of the A/S and alt tapes and associated symbology making them much harder to read. Am I alone in this?

I don't fly for a living, so I'm curious of the opinion of those who do.

[NYPrivatePilot]

richatom writes I agree the Garmin G1000 is a good layout. I wish thought that they had included wind vector and ground track on the HSI. Currently wind vector is on the MFD and ground track is displayed digitally top right of PFD so your scan is scattered.

Not sure I understand this - as implemented on the 172 G1000 and others the wind vector is on the PFD, immediately to the upper left of the HSI. Ground track is indicated ON the HSI by a little magenta delta.

By the way, Garmin has now announced a Synthetic Vision and Highway in the Sky upgrade to the G1000. Neat demo video here:
http://www.aopa.org/pilot/firstlook/080408garminsvs.html

Garmin's web info here:
http://www8.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/040708.html