Evaluating Flight Deck layout

[gordon field]

The Cooper-Harper rating scale enables pilots to evaluate the handling characteristics of an aircraft. I believe that there is a similar rating scale for the layout of Flight Decks. Any links would be appreciated.

[BossEyed]

If you're thinking of helicopter ship ops, it's not for the layout of flight decks, but for the workload of the pilot landing on a moving deck. It's no good on its own, though - it's only one of at least 3 Rating Scales you'd want to consider for a safe clearance.

Google search for "DIPES" or "Dynamic Interface Pilot Effort Scale", which is a joint US/UK/Canada/Australia/New Zealand initiative based on Cooper-Harper HQR principles.

And if you'd like someone to do the trials for you, I know some men who can. :ok:

[FlightTester]

Try also the NASA TLX rating index - google NASA TLX

[V1... Ooops]

Thanks for that reference to the NASA TLX tool, FlightTester - I'm in the midst of certifying a significantly revised flight compartment layout, and I think that tool will be quite useful for substantiation. :)

[FlightTester]

You're welcome. How's the Apex system performing?

[V1... Ooops]

Hi:

It's going very well. We have flown the aircraft - in fact, we flew it from one side of the continent to the other and back again - and I am very pleased with the Apex suite. The integration of information and the manner in which information is visually presented (e.g. the ability to overlay multiple sets of related inputs and consider the 'big picture') is great, and the hardware works very well - the screens are bright and cross-cockpit viewing is excellent.

We're just finishing up the last of the work to integrate new airframe sensors for certain non-avionics related signals. But, all things considered, I would say we are pretty happy with the system - it does everything that Honeywell promised it would, and Honeywell has given us really first-class vendor support at every step along the way. We hope to get the certification finished in the next quarter.

[gordon field]

Hi V1 and Flight Tester you seem to be the rightguys in that particularly V1 you appear to have been working on similar program that of integrating an new EFIS with an old Flight Director system. Looks like a very good match.

The after sales support comment is interesting perhaps we are talking to the wrong guy!

The problem I have is that over the years with the constant upgrade of avionics, ETM and more annunciators appear to be scattered around the instrument panel I am trying to persuade the guys who design the panel (and often don't fly aircraft) that they have to be logical in the layout.

What appears to be fine on the Catia / drawing doesn't always work out when you sit an average sized pilot in the P1 or P2 position.

Many annunciators are being hidden under the glareshield.

Many switches are not placed logically.

Many none essential decals are being unnecessarily applied right in view of the pilot when there are better places.

I've just had none see through decals stuck on see through Rosen Sun Visors which were fitted as the old ones were none see through! I am not happy.

The Cooper Harper scale defines what is and what is not acceptable from a handling point of view. Several decades ago there was a similar Flow Chart (possibly German) that assessed the position of all of the essential and optional items on the flight deck starting with access to the cockpit.

For example

1. Could a normal person actually access the seats without having to step on the central pedastal / power levers up trouser leg. Were there sharp objects in the way of access. Did they have to hold on to a piece of equipment rather than provide a hand hold.

Does the P1 /P2 seat have adequate tracking, vertical adjustment with adequate headroom with headset, can it go low enough to provide full and free controls without having to spread your knees? Full roll control by P1 with the P2 writing up the tech log on his lap?

Some manufacturers are fitting overpadded seats and then sheepskin covers thus reducing headroom when what is needed is the correct type of absorbant seat foam.

Moving on to the instrument panel, could switches and levers be reached with harness locked.

Was layout logical and one that could be understood by Capt Average.

Stowage and accessability for POH and checklists. Is the POH say A4 size so that it cannot be used on the Flight Deck without blanking out the view ahead and instrument panel.

My complaint is that annunciators are now being hidden under the glareshield and cannot be seen by the average pilot sitting in the average position.

Master warning lights are being placed right in front of the pilot when they could be moved to the right, still well in view of P1/P2 but not creating 'visual noise'.

Logically the pilot should, on finals, be able to transition from EFIS to visual with a 5deg vertical movement of the head/eyes and not be faced with 'looking through' non essential warning lights, decals and minor switches. On approaching minima I want to know if I can see the approach lights, if not back on instruments not staring at a decal to reminded me to switch of the aircon prior to take off!

In the 80s if you took your MET or MEP from Big C in for service then it would come out plastered with big white decals saying Aviation is hazardous and can result in death! Not 1 but 2 decals.

If you flew brand B from ICT then on the older MEP they hid most of the CBs under the instrument panel. Not good at night.

Big P had fuel gauges in the roof, not good to make such a movement with the head at a critical time.

With an upgrade we have the opporunity of 'getting it right' and have an obligation to do so.

If I remember correctly

The Flow Chart started with considering each item and assessing it as being:


Non Acceptable
- Non compliant (regs) = Re-design
- Safety issue = sharp object, damage equipment, unlock or set off fire extinguisher

Acceptable
- Barely = seriously consider whether this could be better placed
- Moderately = could it be better placed

- Good = no change needed at this time

- Excellent

I know I have not used the correct terminology and it doesn't result in a numbers score rating but does get people thinking and hopefully making decisions and building better/safer aircraft.

The NASA TLX is a sound basis but rather like a consumer survey from Readers Digest!

I know I cut out the article and safely saved it for a later day. That day has arrived.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[FlightTester]

Hi Gordon,

The flow chart you're describing sounds like a modified CH rating. There are plenty of them out there.

As to cockpit compartment view - I'm assuming that you've looked at FAR 23.773, 777, 1311 and 1321. These regs are useful to define what goes where. If you're working with a Part 25 aircraft the corresponding regs are in the same sections.

The trick to modifying the CH scale is to know how it needs to relate to the regs outlined above.

I've recently modifed a ProLine 4 flightdeck to a ProLine 21 deck, prepared another to accept SVS, and I'm about to modify an Epic equipped flightdeck to a ProLine Fusion one.

Cheers

FT

[gordon field]

Thanks FT I think I will have to work on my own version of the CH and try and gets the others in the team to accept that we need to have an agreed 'yardstick'.
Problem is we all work for different companies, different nationalities, different paychecks and the end user is not aware of the difficulties in working with FAA and EASA and wants a glass cockpit and other changes yesterday.
Challenges are there to keep us young.

Are Rusty Ecks still selling Fords at ICT?

Cheers GF

[FlightTester]

Ahh situation normal then - I'd like it yesterday is one of my favorites too. I'm currently working with a set of software that's at least two months late but the Cert date isn't moving to accomodate the delay.

Rusty Eck and all the others are currently giving cars away! It's almost dishonest to go into a dealer right now. Some of the 09 cars are over 50% off MSRP.

Cheers

FT

[V1... Ooops]

...I'm currently working with a set of software that's at least two months late but the Cert date isn't moving to accomodate the delay.

I really got a good chuckle out of that comment. Don't worry, the cert date will move of its own accord. :)

[V1... Ooops]

...My complaint is that annunciators are now being hidden under the glareshield and cannot be seen by the average pilot sitting in the average position.

Hi Gordon:

There is a reasonably easy fix for that. What I did was to install an eye height reference device (three balls) on the windshield centre post. Hella, out of Lippstadt, Germany, make a very nice one that is illuminated and only costs about $300. The horizontal angle is fixed, but the geometry would probably work for just about any aircraft with a 'typical' size flight compartment.

The aircraft I am responsible for is a 40 year old, 19 seat turboprop. It's a Part 23 aircraft, and therefore is not required to have an eye height reference device, but I thought that it was necessary to put one in to avoid exactly the problem you have mentioned. Once you define the pilot(s) eyepoint, most of the discussion and argument about where to put everything else stops... either the pilot can see it, or they can't, and if it is the latter, then the position has to be changed.

I also had to move a few tertiary controls (heating system controls, etc.) around in order to allow them to be reached by a pilot who was seated IAW the eye reference device and was wearing both a seat belt and a shoulder harness. Again, if you have the eye point reference device in the design to start with, it's pretty easy to convince others when things need to be moved.

Send me a private message if you would like to discuss this further.

[ICT_SLB]

"I've recently modifed a ProLine 4 flightdeck to a ProLine 21 deck, prepared another to accept SVS, and I'm about to modify an Epic equipped flightdeck to a ProLine Fusion one."

With a little help from the Engineering group.....

[FlightTester]

"I've recently modifed a ProLine 4 flightdeck to a ProLine 21 deck, prepared another to accept SVS, and I'm about to modify an Epic equipped flightdeck to a ProLine Fusion one."

With a little help from the Engineering group.....


No - with a huge amount of help from Engineering, goes without saying really.:ok:

[Gregg]

Have you tried using the Bedford Workload Rating Scale? It is essentially a CH scale modified for use in assessing workload and is often used for flight deck evaluations.

[Shawn Coyle]

For anyone involved in putting in new displays, have you seen the Marinvent Dynamic Non-Linear Displays? The whole airspeed range from stall to past VNE is shown, and the whole altitude scale from below sea level to the service ceiling is displayed. Situational awareness is improved, and any hard altitude clearance limits are continuously in view.
If anyone wants more info, PM me - I've got a copy of their brochure on DNLD.

[safetypee]

Shawn I would be interested (see pm).
I recall an experimental HUD installation which had a non linear pitch scale – above xx deg (horizon out of view), the scale decreased in relation to the real world. The scaling reversed at 90 deg. This resulted in disturbing sensations where the body sensed pitch rate did not agree with the display – just try a loop! I have a lingering memory that some aircraft used this system operationally, anyone recall if this was so?
I wonder if the Marinvent displays might have similar qualities, where the scalar speed acceleration or altitude change differ from reality. Whilst this was not a point of concern in early EFIS, other limitations of the small displays resulted in ‘crutches’ of airspeed trend vectors and wedge shaped altimeter pointers.
The above reinforces the point that there can be marked differences between a static cockpit evaluation where equipment of a known standard replaces older systems, and the installation of new, innovative displays. The latter, and sometimes the known equipment, require flight evaluation.