PDA

View Full Version : New AI Design


Autogeorge
6th Nov 2009, 13:33
Interesting. What do people think about this?

Pilots' artificial horizon lined up for a revamp - tech - 06 November 2009 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427335.300-pilots-artificial-horizon-lined-up-for-a-revamp.html)

KiloB
6th Nov 2009, 17:07
Don't Russian A/C use a system similar to this where the horizon is fixed (relative to your own A/C)?

KB

Jig Peter
6th Nov 2009, 17:21
The comments on the link seem sensible, specially about re-training all those pilots who don't find the present display disorienting (except in Russia, of course).
For UAV operators, there could well be a case in such a display's favour, which could meann that in a decade or so, when manned fighters have been replaced by drones, the current AH would seem as old-fashioned as a Sopwith Camel's cockpit layout. These Uni-farcity perfessers have to (seem to) justify their existence somehow, no ??? ...
.:ouch:

angelorange
6th Nov 2009, 18:35
Good that folk are thinking about improving safety but 92% of pilots misinterpret traditional AI ?!!!!!: Sounds like non-sense of they weren't IMC or IR rated pilots!

What about that attitude displayed whilst experiencing G?

Does the view out of the aeroplane and hence Attitude Indicator reflect the real world?

FE Hoppy
6th Nov 2009, 20:32
I'd like to know which avionics company is financing that research. 83% of all research statistics are in favour of their sponsors latest development.*




*made up statistic to illustrate point.

Pugilistic Animus
6th Nov 2009, 20:40
92% if they're IR then that would mean FAIL!!!!

such crap really is

I don't believe that; the AI is set up just like it is outside I don't see the difference truth be told the AI is just as easy as the real deal heck partial panel ain't even that bad:cool:

as was said by bother on this thread, basically just a money making scheme based on "new ideas":*

And 'New Ideas' are Dangerous!!!!

PA

ReverseFlight
7th Nov 2009, 07:16
I don't care much about statistics (92% or otherwise) but it's a phenomenon which I have come across earlier in my training, and if I have experienced that error, some other student pilot could very well have done the same. Let's share these ideas to make avaition a safer undertaking.

This is how I explained it to a non-pilot friend. You can see from the diagram that the traditional style shows a bank or roll to the right. Now, to the untrained/unfamiliar eye, the pilot may try to turn right more in order to steer/rotate/move the top pointer of the instrument towards the top of the instrument panel, whereas they should be banking or rolling left to correct (the rule I personally use is to steer the stick/column towards the pointer i.e. assume the pointer is stationary).

Some trainers also tell students to cross-check against the turn coordinator, which tells you the direction of roll or bank but not the angle of bank (the AH does both). In a TC, there is no doubt as to which way the aircraft is turning as it indicates the direction of turn by banking a small picture/model of an aeroplane (less confusing than AH).

The inventor is quite correct to point out that the traditional instrument gives rise to errors because when the aircraft rolls right, the instrument rolls left (stupid if you ask me). His invention causes the pilot to "pull" the number "2" end of "204" which is a left corrective bank to an induced right roll (his number banks right when the aircraft banks right, so the ergonomics is correct).

It is almost impossible to redesign the traditional AH instrument but with glass cockpits, all the information is displayed on a couple of monitors (half of the fleet at our FTO has glass cockpits and we fly them regularly).

The LCD display gives a depiction of a sky and ground and the instrument readings "float" in the foreground. It is therefore easier to interpret because the display is not round and you can clearly see where the "sky" is even if you are in cloud. Although the horizon still rolls left when the aircraft rolls right, it causes less of a disorientation problem, as the top pointer of the electronic AH is displayed only as a tiny triangle near the top of the screen (not as distracting as the AH). LCD presentations can always be manipulated or redesigned easily to suit new ideas, unlike the old style gyro instruments.

BTW, another confusing instrument in the cockpit is the traditional standby magnetic compass. When you wish to turn right from say 000 degress to 030 degrees, the number 030 is to the left of the central indicator so the untrained will turn instinctively to the left, whereas they should be turning to the right. The problem stems from the compass bearing lines being in reverse, so to turn to a figure on the left of the indicator, you steer right (again stupid), all because the front of the compass aligns with your flightpath ok but the pilot sits behind the compass and the readings have to be reversed through the indicator window. Now if someone used some brains and a couple of prisms, that problem can be easily resolved. If you can do that, the patent is yours. :ok:

Microburst2002
7th Nov 2009, 07:18
If we fail to fail to interpret the AI a 92%, Why not paint the blue side brown and the brown side blue?

And Which is that "real world" he talks about?

If there is some improvement in attitude indicators it will be 3D screens or, in "the futuristic future" holograms or something cool.

And what about NDs? Should we use it in PLAN mode instead of NAV or MAP modes? Because in "the real world" it is the airplane that moves...

But let's say we love it! If they learn we hate it, they will do whatever it takes to make it standard soon...

Karl Bamforth
7th Nov 2009, 07:35
I really don't see the problem.

On the linked web page they state that with the classic design the arificial horizon moves and with the new its fixed. I see it the other way around.
In the classic design the horiz is stationary and the aircraft and instrument case roll around it. The artificial horizon is staying stationary with respect to the real horizon.

The only ppl that would feel more at home with the proposed new set up is russians and Microsoft flight sim guys.

Just out of interest reverse, did you play a lot of flight sim before flying the real thing ? If you don't want to commit in open forum then a pm would be good, just interested if the flight sim idea is true for you.

Checkboard
7th Nov 2009, 10:38
It's an idea from the flight sim generation - used to looking at computer aircraft from "follow me view" flying on a screen while seated in a stationary reference frame.

Pilots who learned to fly the aircraft by flying an aircraft generally don't have a problem with the presentation after being introduced to it in the air, where your moving reference frame matches the instrument.

Mind you, that doesn't mean that a new presentation wouldn't be more appropriate now that most pilots have more sim experience (recreational and technical) than flying experience by the time they sit in an airliner, and once in that airliner spend more time looking at a newspaper than looking at the instruments in any case. :rolleyes:

angelorange
7th Nov 2009, 20:27
agree with Checkboard.

If you fly an aeroplane you experience G in the three aircraft axes. Your control inputs are relative to those axes no matter what the attitude of the aircraft. If you are inverted in an aerobatic machine and push the Control Column forwards the nose move away from you the pilot creating negative G feeling but the aeroplane will fly level or climb away from the ground.

At 80 degrees bank in a level turn the pilot and aeroplane experience almost 6 G ! How many G did the research pilot's experience when using the old and new systems?

The Western AI is identical to the real world outside on a sunny day with good horizon except in YAW. So Angle of Bank and Angle of Pitch are very obvious to the pilot. The nose is clearly shown and bank angle can be viewed against the horizon or at the top of the display.

Set a pitch attitude, set a bank angle and check the Turn Needle for yaw, Slip Ball for balance.

By the way a TC is NOT the same as a TN - only the TN will show the true direction of a SPIN.

ReverseFlight
7th Nov 2009, 21:45
Hi Karl, in short, no, I wasn't brought up on FS. FS came very late in life for me.

My career so far has been PPL(H) - CPL(H) - fATPL(H) - CPL(A) - fATPL(A) - ME/CIR(A) - FIR(A), then upon renewals of my ME/CIR(A), I played a bit of FS (wow!).

Karl Bamforth
8th Nov 2009, 06:44
Thanks Reverse, just wondered.

Seems some others here think the same as me.

STBYRUD
8th Nov 2009, 08:20
I also agree, the modern AI after all was derived from the 'artificial horizon', and as such just replicates the natural horizon outside the aircraft. Just from the standpoint of mental effort required to process the image presented by the traditional AI and the proposed version it should be a lot more natural to analyze the tilt of the horizon than the orientation of a block of numbers... I'd really like to know how they obtained that 'scientific data' and what the test group was.

DeltaRomeoWhisky
9th Nov 2009, 09:42
I’m glad that the VIVID / IPRS display has stirred some interesting debate: perhaps I can give a little clarification.

First of all a question: How often is the phrase “Weather conditions at the time were reported as poor” included in news reports of an airliner accident?

All attitude / flight control / radio navigation instrumentation is designed for flight in IMC conditions when the pilots cannot see the outside world.

If the ‘moving horizon’ aesthetic was the optimum solution for flight in IMC, then airliners (and other aircraft being flown by IR rated crews) would no longer be lost through circumstances of loss of control or controlled flight into terrain. However, the irrefutable truth is––airliners are still lost; they still crash through CFIT and LoC; CFIT and LoC still account for the overwhelming majority of multiple-fatality aviation losses.

So something is going wrong. And––most importantly of all––going wrong when the pilot/s are flying on instruments.

The research underpinning the seven years design development work briefly reported in NS concluded that accidents occur when things go wrong––particularly when the situation suddenly changes or there’s some form of distraction or other reason why the pilots’ attention is diverted from the instruments.

When returning attention to the instruments, and finding that the aircraft has entered an uncommanded unusual attitude/unusual position, there is the requirement for a rapid cognitive assimilation of the aircraft’s attitude––and the application of corrective action.

If there is any adrenaline in the pilot’s bloodstream at that point, through a flash of confusion, or severe monsoon turbulence, or spatial disorientation––and all pilots can suffer from a sudden onset of spatial disorientation––then the ability to work-out which way is up is degraded: adrenaline suppresses the ability to think––which in turn can lead to more adrenal secretion and an escalating situation [look up the sympathetic nervous system and fight or flight response––it is an evolutionary relict from when every animal (humans included) was some other animal’s dinner]. The ultimate expression of adrenal secretion––when it can’t be used-up through running or fighting, is fear paralysis––scared stiff; frightened rigid.

So, currently, at a time when the pilot’s cognitive capability is degraded, s/he is required to abstract information from three different displays––construct a mental model––and fly relative to that model.

When the pilot hits a hill, or the ground ten miles short of the runway, that mental model isn’t just severely degraded. It is wrong––totally wrong––fatally wrong.

The VIVID / IPRS display is designed to eliminate all requirement for mental modelling––it’s designed to be easily read––and used––in the most severe conditions.

In fact, a design parameter for the development programme was that if anything needed explanation, it was unacceptable––the displays concepts (and there are more than one) had to be totally intuitive to use. No prior training should be needed.

This was proven in the series of experiments––where the test participants were given a series of situations––including the UP/UA scenario described above––they all intuitively flew the new aesthetic correctly. The participants were all current fast-jet, military logistics and civilian commercial airline (Airbus/Boeing) pilots with a total experience of 100,078 flying hours––and an IR was a minimum requirement for inclusion. The captured pilots’ cognitive response times showed that the new aesthetic was considerably easier to read and fly with––and in post test discussions, practically every pilot said they preferred it. “This is the future!” “I’d fly this tomorrow” "I absolutely love it" were fairly typical pilot opinions.

Sadly, only a very small amount of detail could be included in NS, but hopefully more––particularly from the very exciting air-to-air tanking situational awareness display, fast-jet multi-layer mission-management large-screen display, and UCAS integrated control suite display––will be released soon.

DW

Human Factor
9th Nov 2009, 10:01
As someone who flies regularly using both the "conventional" and "Russian" attitude indicators, I would be interested to see how this proposal compares in practice. I find the "conventional" system the most intuitive - probably due to familiarity, whilst the "Russian" requires a slight reprogramming of the mental model - although I'm sure it would be equally intuitive given sufficient practice. The Russians seem to manage with it pretty well! ;)

The issue I have is that this is only likely to be suitable for glass-panel aircraft. Clearly in the future, a greater number of aircraft will be designed from the outset with "glass cockpits" but not all those with conventional instrumentation can be retrofitted and some of those are likely to be with us for a long time. This would lead to many pilots flying using any or all of three systems, which can certainly be taught but would likely lead to "reversion to type" - whichever type that may be - in stressful situations. Given that this would be the primary instrument, is that necessarily a good thing?

The VIVID / IPRS display is designed to eliminate all requirement for mental modelling––it’s designed to be easily read––and used––in the most severe conditions.

With regard to "eliminating the mental model", whilst I applaud the efforts taken to make the display intuitive and easy to use, the mental model/spatial awareness/"The Big Picture" - call it what you like - is an essential part of aircraft operations. Using this new device as an enhancement to the mental model should perhaps be encouraged but I don't think trying to eliminate it could be considered progress.

I'm not a luddite. Any potential improvement to flight safety should be given due consideration. However, be very careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

HF (8500 hours)

Edit: Interestingly, one of the most intuitive systems I have used is the "Flight Path Vector" ("Birdie") on both Boeings and Airbus. Irrespective of aircraft attitude/heading, it shows a realtime graphic of actual aircraft flight path (flight path angle & track) relative to the horizon. The downside is that you need three ring laser gyros and a couple of GPS to make it work properly.

Capt Pit Bull
9th Nov 2009, 16:31
Lots of holes in this article.

The article says 'old style' artifical horizons tilt the display when the aircraft bunts. Are they trying to talk about gimballing limits or acceleration errors? Or, given that the associated diagram show zero pitch, does the author simply not know what a 'bunt' is.

The article says that when the plane banks left, the horizon rolls right. Hardly. The horizon stays where it is, and the aircraft and pilot rotate around it.

I must say that I'm glad there is plan to "enhance" the system so it will also indicate pitch... call me fussy, but I'd have said that was a fundamental requirement for an attitude indicator, not an 'enhancement'. Rather like buying a revolutionary new car on the basis that they might add wheels to it at some point in the future.

I point blank refuse to accept that 92% of pilots misinterpreted the conventional AH. If that where the case there would be aircraft spearing in by the hundred every day.

If the ‘moving horizon’ aesthetic was the optimum solution for flight in IMC, then airliners (and other aircraft being flown by IR rated crews) would no longer be lost through circumstances of loss of control or controlled flight into terrain. However, the irrefutable truth is––airliners are still lost; they still crash through CFIT and LoC; CFIT and LoC still account for the overwhelming majority of multiple-fatality aviation losses.

Pilots can crash due to disorientation, yes, but there are usually other factors at work than misinterpreting the AH. Navigational disorientation rather than attitude disorientation is more likely, or a failure to transition onto instruments (regardless of the type).

First of all a question: How often is the phrase “Weather conditions at the time were reported as poor” included in news reports of an airliner accident?

Windshear / icing / aquaplaning / tailwinds / turbulence ..... all of which can cause accidents and indeed have caused accidents without the crew becoming confused as to which way up or where they are.

Of course, aircraft have crashed due to misinterpretation of instruments. Flash 604 seems a strong candidate... but the weather there is decribed as having been excellent.

Aircraft also crash when instruments malfunction... how easy is it going to be to scan across to the other side of the flight deck for an instrument cross check? Whats going to happen at 400 feet on a low vis approach when the Efis comparator warning sounds? Instead of a quick scan through the standby and then to the other guys PFD, with nice big visible sky / ground symbology, we'd have to squint across and try and figure out which side is good and which is toppling, by assessing the angle of a block of 3 digits... I don't think so.

So something is going wrong. And––most importantly of all––going wrong when the pilot/s are flying on instruments.

Wooly thinking. Correlation <> causality. Especially since most professional pilots spend most of their time flying on instruments.

accidents occur when things go wrong––

No kidding!

When returning attention to the instruments, and finding that the aircraft has entered an uncommanded unusual attitude/unusual position, there is the requirement for a rapid cognitive assimilation of the aircraft’s attitude––and the application of corrective action.

If there is any adrenaline in the pilot’s bloodstream at that point, through a flash of confusion, or severe monsoon turbulence, or spatial disorientation––and all pilots can suffer from a sudden onset of spatial disorientation––then the ability to work-out which way is up is degraded: adrenaline suppresses the ability to think––which in turn can lead to more adrenal secretion and an escalating situation [look up the sympathetic nervous system and fight or flight response––it is an evolutionary relict from when every animal (humans included) was some other animal’s dinner]. The ultimate expression of adrenal secretion––when it can’t be used-up through running or fighting, is fear paralysis––scared stiff; frightened rigid.

All accepted, but this is why there is no substitute for actual experience of unusual attitude recovery, using the most elementary instruments. This premits rapid recognition that action is required - even if not scanning the instruments, (e.g. picking up seat of the pants acceleration cues or slipstream noise changes) - allowing recovery to commence before the flight path diverges too far.

Without solid training and experience, the 'scared stiff' situation will prevent any effective recovery - regardless of the instrument presentation.


So, currently, at a time when the pilot’s cognitive capability is degraded, s/he is required to abstract information from three different displays––construct a mental model––and fly relative to that model.

Well, our priority 1 is the flight envelope, and by my reckoning you need at most 2 instruments to protect that, and only a glance at one of them before taking the first step in a recovery (possible exception - aircraft with a strong pitch power couple).

When the pilot hits a hill, or the ground ten miles short of the runway, that mental model isn’t just severely degraded. It is wrong––totally wrong––fatally wrong.

How many CFITs on EGPWS equipped aircraft?

In fact, a design parameter for the development programme was that if anything needed explanation, it was unacceptable––the displays concepts (and there are more than one) had to be totally intuitive to use. No prior training should be needed.

I reckon what we have here is everything that is wrong with this industry. Why search for an engineering solution to a lack of crew skills? Why is 'no training' a desireable objective? Don't get me wrong - badly designed instrumentation should be put out to pasture, and I've often wondered what it would be like to have the funding to design a flight deck from scratch, with no compulsion to follow existing conventions, but when its all said and done you can not simulate the roar of an increasing slipstream and building G-forces.

Sadly, only a very small amount of detail could be included in NS,

That much I am glad to hear. The NS article just reads like gibberish to me!

Lets hope the actual concepts are useful.

pb

Denti
9th Nov 2009, 17:18
It seems hard to me to confuse the new generation of "conventional" AIs that are right now entering GA cockpits and probably soon airliner flightdecks as well. Synthetic vision integrated with EGPWS seems the way to go.

But then i haven't tried out those new concepts.

http://www.skycontrol.net/UserFiles/Image/BusinessGA_img/200804/200804-cessna-GarminSVT_Runway%20Ident.jpg

ReverseFlight
10th Nov 2009, 03:28
While you mention it Denti, our FTO is changing all the old style AH/DGs to LCD panels (with electronic balance), so even without autopilot on basic VFR aircraft, it's ridding the vacuum pumps and all the extra weight and maintainence which comes with it. All of a sudden we are getting lots of blocked holes on the instrument panel where such things as the turn coordinator used to be. The LCD DG no longer needs alignment at periodic intervals, which is great.

STBYRUD
10th Nov 2009, 07:57
I thought that glass cockpits could reduce weight on light aircraft, Piper proved the opposite - how on earth is the PA44 50 kilograms heavier with the Avidyne Entegra installed compared to the full IFR 'steam gauge' version?

Anyhow, back to the topic: Hmm, I'm really trying to look at this objectively, and no matter how hard I try, I cannot see how its supposed to be easier to read off the orientation of a block of three digits compared to a straight line separating a blue and a brown hemisphere. It would be interesting to try this out on novice pilots, I guess people who haven't used conventional ADIs are a better source for unbiased data...

Oh, and this: "In the real world, the horizon is the fixed, stable element against which all movement is measured."
Why yes, but the pilot himself has his own frame of reference, namely the airplane - the current instrument show the "fixed horizon" from the airplane frame of reference. The pilot is moving along with his airplane, and thus needs information based on this point of view. On a UAV on the other hand I could imagine that the proposed style would make a lot more sense...

DeltaRomeoWhisky
10th Nov 2009, 10:19
Capt Pitbull is quite correct; there are, unfortunately, some errors in the New Scientist article. But the article was not written by the originators of the development work––it was written by a journalist.

The word ‘bunt’ does not appear in any of the work associated with the project––or in the presentation given at the week long Royal Aeronautical Society CEAS International New Innovations Conference held in Manchester.

Were any of you there?

Clearly not.

Because I had assumed––obviously, completely incorrectly, that the negative comments being posted on this next-generation thinking––were as a result of reading––and carefully assessing––the RAeS published academic conference paper on the subject––and not on a postage-stamp sized illustration of part of an experiment, in a half-page magazine article with, as you quite rightly point out, some holes in it.

This work (which is continuing) was conducted as a seven year full-time research and iterative design development programme, in very close association with senior airline and military establishments (and the cockpit display is only a part of the new systems produced).

(By the way: there most certainly are pitch indications in the display––but the IPRS system only displays information as the pilot needs it––again, that is all clearly covered in the conference paper which I'm sure the RAeS will be happy to supply you with.)

One of the key outcomes of the research was this: Adrenaline is the killer.

Go and do some research on that yourself––and whist you’re at it, look at some of the internationally acclaimed work done on the issues relative to LoC and CFIT (much of it funded by NASA and the FAA) by Shappell and Weigmann; Chris Wickens, and Stanley Roscoe.

What you will come to is a very clear conclusion––No amount of training will overcome the automatic sympathetic nervous system (a relict of our evolution): Once adrenaline floods into the bloodstream, thinking closes-down. The pilot cannot read one mechanical aesthetic instrument––let alone two. The accident statistics prove that.

So, the outcome of the research was that to eliminate the effects of adrenaline, we need systems that don’t require thinking.

And whilst you are doing some research, check the E/GPWS stastics––accidents still occur where ground proximity systems annunciate. (And we have looked at and addressed the reasons for that.)

Get used to one fact: change, is inevitable.

It is no longer acceptable––or necessary––for an airliner full of innocent people to be lost in circumstances of loss of control or controlled flight into terrain.

Let me repeat that: It is no longer necessary for LoC or CFIT to happen.

Loss of Control and Controlled Flight Into Terrain can be stopped.

Although there are military applications for the work very briefly reported in New Scientist––the overriding objective––the thing that drives it, is (and remains) to stop control of airliners being lost in weather extremes––and to stop airliners flying into mountains or into the ground short of the runway on approach.

Jwscud
10th Nov 2009, 11:05
Would it be possible to provide a link to this paper for those of us without academic journal subscriptions?

Capt Pit Bull
10th Nov 2009, 11:58
DRW,

Look, my main beef is with the NS article. Its a pretty shoddy piece of work. I don't agree with the emphasis of some of the things you said in the original article but lets just clear the air on a couple of points.

1. There are plenty of awfully designed systems on modern aircraft. I applaud any attempt to improve the equipment we use.

2. It is no longer acceptable––or necessary––for an airliner full of innocent people to be lost in circumstances of loss of control or controlled flight into terrain.

It never has been acceptable. Any attempts to improve the situation deserve to be supported.

What you will come to is a very clear conclusion––No amount of training will overcome the automatic sympathetic nervous system (a relict of our evolution): Once adrenaline floods into the bloodstream, thinking closes-down.

With all due respect, no ammount of engineering effort will produce a system that is 100% fault proof, no UI design will provide a system that is incapable of being misinterpreted / ignored. With all these things you reach a point of diminishing returns.

So, yes, obviously ultimately anyone can be incapacitated by fear. However, there is no doubt that solid training and experience give you a much better margin before you reach that point.

Ultimately if the system requires any control inputs at all then if someone is panicking or paralysed a safe outcome can not be gaurunteed.


The pilot cannot read one mechanical aesthetic instrument––let alone two. The accident statistics prove that.

Really? What do statistics prove exactly? If a pilot does not succesfully interpret an instrument, how does that prove the design is at fault. When an aircraft is in a million pieces, we don't even know if he was looking at it.

The point is, some of us have had in depth rigorous loss of control training. Most haven't.

Also, you can quote all the academic names you want. Those of us at the coal face in the industry know what the biggest single problem is; weak original training, further atrophied by lack of practice, coupled with complacency at both the individual and the corporate level.

Yes, we would love better equipment, but its only part of the solution and its not a panacea.

Get used to one fact: change, is inevitable

Very used to that concept thankyou. I've seen plenty of change during my time in this profession, (including a good chunk as an avionics instructor) and I've always been happy to grasp the bull by the horns. Unfortunately, accountant driven management practices within the airline community view everything as an opportunity to cut costs. When you look at the industry holistically it is apparent that, regardless of what you and I both think, losing a few hulls world wide anually is deemed acceptable. If this were not the case, the accountants would not be chipping away at our layers of defence. I've experienced first hand the uphill struggle to justify training time - even when the training content is mandated!

Finally DRW, I have to ask this, and its not a willy waving question, but genuine interest, what's your own flying experience? I'd just like to know where you are coming from.

pb

TheOptimist
10th Nov 2009, 12:14
I think some of you are getting bogged down with your experience somewhat. If you're an experienced IR pilot then you're clearly going to like the old method much better.

From a PPL student perspective though, I do think that my view is more objective than some, and from first impressions the new method does seem more intuitive. The proof of the pudding is that if I inadvertantly entered IMC and found myself in a horrible attitude - I'd be comfortable in using the newer option wheras on the spur of the moment, using the older model I think I'd probably turn the wrong way, or at least it would take me a while to decipher the gauge.

In my opinion the newer model does not allow for attitude confusion but the old model definately does. It you're an expert at reading the old style then so-be-it, but for new pilots like myself I'd be very happy to use the new one.

smallfry
10th Nov 2009, 12:30
Well, I admit that I havent delved into the full research, but really I am struggling to understand how a number moving around a blank screen is clearer than the modern generation of synthetic vision panels that are being introduced. Denti posted a very good example, and many others are out there.

I believe putting an accurate picture of the outside world, relative to you, whatever your present attitude, is the best method. And these new synthetic vision displays are amazing. I fly the PlaneView on the G550 and it is like the Falcon Easy displays as well, you really have a good SA.

One Outsider
10th Nov 2009, 12:33
change, is inevitable.
Then why pursue it?

STBYRUD
10th Nov 2009, 12:34
I still don't understand how the whole attitude indicator discussion is in any way related to CFITs - misinterpreting the ADI is probably one of the smallest contributors to such an event while poor situational awareness (especially about the position of the aircraft) resulting from or combined with erronous navigation are the most immediate causes.

Clandestino
10th Nov 2009, 13:43
Well, this research was...

...conducted as a seven year full-time research and iterative design development programme, in very close association with senior airline and military establishments

...in which...

The participants were all current fast-jet, military logistics and civilian commercial airline (Airbus/Boeing) pilots with a total experience of 100,078 flying hours––and an IR was a minimum requirement for inclusion.

...and then ...

A conventional display, which tilts the artificial horizon when the aircraft banks, was misinterpreted by the 92% of the pilots, leading to erroneous and potentially lethal choices.

Basically, it's sales pitch at its worst - in aviation, anyway.

It's the same type solution we adopted when people got killed by misreading the needle or the counter - navigation display was introduced an moving map with it. So do we crash nowadays when the map shifts or we return to good old needles, pointers, CDI and radar vectors? The statement "we need systems that don't require thinking" is quite emblematic of whole project. It's all very well when your synthetic vision conforms to what really is outside, what happens when it doesn't? How does your not-thinking pilot recognize that system is not working properly when there are no flags? And if he recognizes the problem, wil he still be proficient enough to keep the aircraft upright by referring to backup AI?

So dear mr. Wilson, until issues of map shifts and navigational accuracy are eliminated for good, please do not come anywhere near the cockpits of manned aircraft with your synthetic vision. It will create more problems than it apparently solves.

smallfry
10th Nov 2009, 15:03
We are talking about two different things here. The New Scientist article refers to a whole new concept of the display.
Whereas the synthetic systems we already have are extensions and improvements on the existing display.
I can assure you that whilst I have extremely good SA now with my PlaneView cockpit, I can still follow needles for ILS, VOR and NDB's. I do however, have a lot better picture and reliability than in my fathers generation steam driven cockpits of old. Map Shift and nav accuracy? pfff... I dont remember the good old boys flying the comets, VC10's 707's in modern airspace with RVSM, MNPS etc requirements... Right place right day was often all that was required... Laser gyros and GPS are a damn sight better than an VOR with water in it... (see the BA franchise BMED report going into Addis not so long ago...)

I am all for development and innovation, to improve our work environment, but some ideas need a lot more work than others.