NTSB update on Asiana 214

[ExSp33db1rd]

There is a transition going from round dial to tapes. It's like going from an analog to digital watch.

That's why I don't wear a digital watch. One doesn't have to "read" an analogue watch, or instrument, one just "looks at the picture "

On the LSA aircraft I now fly I'm happy if the Old Fart's ASI indicates "approx" 4 o'clock whilst I'm LOOKING OUT OF THE WINDOW on finals, I don't have to move my eyes to read the tape, but when I fly the digital display machine I get anxious and worried - i.e.I stop looking out to read the tape, and .... My God ! I'm doing 66 knots and I should only be doing 65.

OK, I exaggerate ( slightly ) but I'm sure you know what I mean ?

Life was easier before computers - we used commonsense.

[FGD135]

That's why I don't wear a digital watch. One doesn't have to "read" an analogue watch, or instrument, one just "looks at the picture "

And that "picture", is indeed, the BIG PICTURE. The airspeed tape, on the other hand, gives only the small picture, requiring further scrutiny to build a bigger picture.


Excellent comment, ExSp33db1rd

Why is this little reality not bleedingly obvious to the designers of the modern cockpits?

[porterhouse]

The airspeed tape, on the other hand, gives only the small picture, requiring further scrutiny to build a bigger picture.

Not true.
You don't have to read the small number in the box to get very quickly an idea what's happening with your speed. You got bugs, you got magenta trend vector, you got the ticks in the tape running visually showing the speed is not 'stable', etc. You actually get much more visual cues than with any analog gauge. I fly with G1000 and prefer clarity of speed presentation over the old aircraft, there is no comparison.

[AviatorTB]

+1 tho i wish the g1000 would reverse the speed tape's direction so that the higher speeds are below the waterline and slower speeds above it. I have seen that in another EFIS avionics display and it made much more sense to me, esp when I was working on my IR.

[porterhouse]

would reverse the speed tape's direction so that the higher speeds are below

Wow, that would be really, really strange, that would also contradict how altitude tape works so unless you also revered the altitude tape that could confuse a heck out of a pilot. Big guys - Rockwell, Honeywell, Tales - as well as major GA suppliers like Garmin, Avidyne, Bendix, CMC or Aspen all adhere to the same standard. If you can find who has it 'reversed' let me know, first of all I have my doubts such a (certified) system exists second in case I were wrong I would like to find out who decided on such an unorthodox solution. In an experimental, uncertified avionics that would be probably more likely.

[Bergerie1]

ExSp33db1rd
That's why I wear an analogue watch too.


FGD135 and Cool Guys
Thanks for your good posts.

[blind pew]

It's about how the brain works.
Camouflage works by breaking up the shape of the object.
Similarly we recognise shapes and motion.
The gliding and free flying scene have lots of young and not so young innovative instrument designers. Whilst I have had digital and strip displays the easiest and quickest to interpret are pictorial where a glance is enough rather than reading what the digits (strips) actually say.
Examples are the old wind arrow or a semicircular vario dial (with a trend arrow).
Whilst all work efficiently when one is in a high work load (stress) situation surrounded by twenty other pilots in close proximity, in turbulence and next to a mountain face the "modern" instrument presentation is virtually useless as my ageing brain doesn't have enough capacity.
And this isn't after 10 hours in a rarefied atmosphere in the middle of my biological night.

[jmmoric]

I've been looking at this thread and a few others where pilots didn't see a stall comming.

I know that most commercial pilots don't fly anything besides their "big" jets, and most don't even have the papers for smaller aircrafts anymore, and have only flown them a few hours during their initial training.

I was wondering if training in smaller aircrafts, like old-school Pipers and Cessnas with old fashined instruments (clocks), would actually help even airline pilots getting better in the basic understanding of flying. the kind of flying where every action requires a proper reaction.

What I mean is, if you loose speed you shouldn't get confused and try to figure out what the computer does, you should push the throttle and lower the nose a bit without even thinking about the computer, and what it does, or why it does it.

Guess aircrafts that can actually spin could be good training as well

It's really sad to see accidents that could've been saved by very basic flyingskills.

[olasek]

where a glance is enough rather than reading what the digits (strips)

And modern tape readout is far better for such a "glance", comparing modern aircraft speed indicator with a consumer digital watch is a sign of ignorance, only a non-pilot can make such a comparison. The modern tape-based AI gives you a lot more information than just a 'number'. This is another's pilot take on this topic:

http://airfactsjournal.com/2011/09/a...of-two-panels/

[RetiredF4]

@ olasek
No news there, flying 9 hours on autopilot is less tiring then without autopilot, regardless wether you do the crosscheck on analogue dials or glass cockpit.

So what is your point there?

[olasek]

huh??
Said nothing about an autopilot, said something about a digital watch.

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by dazdaz1

Just glanced at my digital watch, 13:49 in a nano second, that information is translated in my brain to a clock face for alternative perspective from numbers, to a identifiable time. Try it, our brains take us to a clock face.

I understand your premise … but, and with no criticism intended, you are expressing your personal preferences. Not everyone sees things, and interprets what they see, in an identical manner to your preferences … and not necessarily identical to anyone else’s, for that matter. That may be due to some aspect in your, and any other individual’s, personal past where a personal conclusion is reached that expresses the concept of “the-current-time” in a specific manner that is more preferable to you – yourself – which may be different from the preferences of others. And, it may be that the reason for the glance at the clock in the first place may have differing motivations. For example, IF you need to KNOW when a specific hour-minute-second is reached (regardless of what “time” that is), using a digital display is likely to be preferential. If one is interested only in being informed as to where they are in terms of the progress of the day (in terms of time), a general clock face is likely more relevant and easily understood.

Originally Posted by FGD135

The whole problem with the tape is that it requires way too much brain power, so when the chips are down, the brain will avoid it. This is a natural thing about all humans, and is related to that well-known tendency of humans to "task-shed" when the going gets busy/stressful.

I understand your premise, as well … but, equally true, and with no criticism intended toward you either, you are also expressing your personal preferences. Again, not everyone sees things, and interprets what they see, in an identical manner to your preferences … and, once again, not necessarily identical to anyone else’s, for that matter.

The fact is that a person is going to use first those things that they have been trained to use – the more training and the better the training – the more likely it will be that this is true. Failing any training, or if presented with a circumstance where the training has been less or inaccurate or incomplete or some other compromising circumstance, the person is much more likely to use what has become most comfortable to them as an individual – and the specifics can be widely different depending on the background, the experiences, and/or the training (if any) of that individual person.

I almost agree with you – in a way – that it might be useful – note, I said “might” be useful – to, as you said, “…for some proper human factors studies to be done under these (simulated) conditions.” However, personally, I would be surprised if there were to be a definitive answer that could be claimed to be the “best” answer, and equally applicable to everyone.

Originally Posted by FGD135

The most obvious examples of command indications are glideslope, localiser and course CDI. If the localiser needle is "to the left", you must make a correction "to the left" in order to correct. If the glideslope needle is "down", you must go "down" to correct. I'm sure everyone is highly familiar with the idea of command indications - we use them almost everyday, almost instinctively - with almost zero brain power.

The speed tape gives indications that are the OPPOSITE of command indications! If you are climbing after takeoff, with one engine out, and the V2 bug is "above", well, guess what? You have to go "down" - that is, lower the nose to increase airspeed (and bring the bug down towards the lubber line).

Again, I understand your premise … but, and yet again, I think this is more a “personal observation and an adopted practice” than a “command indication.” See below: The most basic example I can think of off the top of my head is a Flight Director’s “command bars:” as anyone familiar with these systems will recognize there are the “single cue” and “double cue” kinds of displays. As likely most of us would recognize, the single cue is a “V-shaped” figure into which the pilot is trained to place the nose and the wings of the “airplane representation” within the flight director. As the “V-shaped” figure is positioned within the “Attitude Display Indicator” (ADI), the pilot changes pitch attitude to match the “apex” of the V-shape, and rolls the airplane to match the “legs” of that V-shape. As we all have probably seen, when the pitch and bank “commands” displayed by the “command bars” have been matched by the pilot by “flying” the ADI miniature airplane into that V-shape, the current position of the airplane will, as the command bars are moved by the flight guidance system, eventually reach the desired pitch and bank as displayed by the flight director.

However, with the dual cue system … it is different. Two bars are displayed within the ADI … one displaying vertical movement (i.e., pitch) and the other displaying lateral movement (i.e., bank). If the horizontal command bar is elevated, the pilot must pull back on the controls to increase the pitch attitude (and vice versa) – However, if the nose of the miniature airplane is increased to match the “elevation” of that horizontal command bar … OR if the bank angle is increased (either left or right – depending on whether the vertical command bar is displaced either left or right in the ADI), inevitably, the pilot will find that as he/she is increasing the pitch attitude to bring the miniature airplane nose up to the horizontal command bar, that command bar will, inevitably, move toward the bottom of the case – indicating that the pilot must now move the elevator controls forward (nose down). But, again, inevitably, as the nose is moving down, the horizontal bar will, again, begin moving toward the top of the case … once again, “commanding” the pilot to increase the pitch attitude.

While the term “command bar” is likely the most logical descriptor of the role of the flight director display, for it to be followed as a specific “command” it would have to be immediately followed in both direction and magnitude of the correction instantaneously computed and displayed. However, this would likely require intense and riveted attention be paid to the command bar location and require immediate control application (pitch and bank – together with appropriate power adjustment, when and where required) to follow the “commands” as presented. However, if the pilot’s response is gauged as the initiation of movement in the direction of the commanded pitch or bank (or both) while realizing that once the direction and rate of pitch or bank change is recognized by the computer, subsequent calculations will display a continuous and immediate airplane attitude appropriate for when that calculation was completed. However, since this calculation is a continuing operation, continually showing the desired pitch and/or bank at THAT moment and what kind of adjustment would be required at that specific moment would be required.

It wasn’t until I had an opportunity to “play” with this particular type of flight director, did I begin to learn that the initial position of the command bars – either horizontal or vertical – was an indication of the direction of movement of the airplane’s pitch or bank. With my “understanding” that the “command” that was being given by the position of the “command” bar was not a position, but a direction. Of course, this is a simplification that I adopted to more easily understand when and how I should adjust the airplane flight controls to satisfy the flight director “commands” … i.e., if the horizontal command bar was positioned above the miniature airplane within the ADI, the “command” was understood as “…pitch up, and as you pitch, the computer will compute the existing pitch angle and the rate of pitch and adjust the commanded display accordingly.” As the airplane began to move, the command bars would re-position to a lesser position with respect to either pitch or bank or both. This understanding allowed the amount of “chasing” of the command bars to be decreased and thereby allowed smoother flight profile adjustment in accordance with the computer’s commanded attitude.

Again – training is the bed-rock (i.e., the foundation) that all airplane operations simply MUST be based upon. There is certainly more than a singular way for an instructor to get across to his/her students what they must do to fly the airplane the way it was designed to be flown. And when that instructor can find what kind of things make more sense to that particular student, that instructor will likely find a much more proficient way to have that student understand and assimilate the several aspects of flight training – knowledge based, rule based, and skill based behaviors. Of course it is significant to recognize the level of sophistication of any/all systems - particularly flight control systems - that the pilot must have full functional knowledge of and complete mastery of that/those system(s) in order to fulfill the role of "pilot flying" ... I am of the sincere belief that one of the pilots must be "flying" the airplane at ALL times ... even when the autoflight systems are engaged and functioning. Letting "George" do the flying is a mistake that all of us should seek to eliminate whenever, and where ever it is discussed or described.

[RetiredF4]

Olasek

huh??
Said nothing about an autopilot, said something about a digital watch.

You posted a link that should prove the point made by yourselve?. In that link a pilot is comparing flying the same route with an aircraft with old round gauges and no autopilot to flying with glass cockpit with autopilot and being more relaxed after the later flight.

your post, my bolding:

And modern tape readout is far better for such a "glance", comparing modern aircraft speed indicator with a consumer digital watch is a sign of ignorance, only a non-pilot can make such a comparison. The modern tape-based AI gives you a lot more information than just a 'number'. This is another's pilot take on this topic:

http://airfactsjournal.com/2011/09/a...of-two-panels/

So again: what do you want to prove with this link?

[olasek]

And does it have to be always a 'point'?
Also the article says more than just about the autopilot, if you cared to read in in its entirety...

[Schnowzer]

Lots of great gen about instruments. Speed tape gives a subtlety different indication to a round dial but a pilot still flies pictures. Above the bug is ok, below it is bad just like on a round dial.

Didn't they just miss the runway on a beautiful day in SFO? Sorry, the only contributing factor I can see is base incompetence.

[ThreeThreeMike]

Originally Posted by Schnowzer

Didn't they just miss the runway on a beautiful day in SFO? Sorry, the only contributing factor I can see is base incompetence.

It just keeps coming back to that, doesn't it? Strange.

[bloom]

_"And modern tape readout is far better for such a "glance", comparing modern aircraft speed indicator with a consumer digital watch is a sign of ignorance, only a non-pilot can make such a comparison. The modern tape-based AI gives you a lot more information than just a 'number'. This is another's pilot take on this topic:""

"That's why I don't wear a digital watch. One doesn't have to "read" an analogue watch, or instrument, one just "looks at the picture ""

Ahh, the old analog vs digital (as in numbers, not electronics).

Referencing the above red: That is a sign of pilot ignorance.

They both have their place.

An analog watch quickly shows the "arc". For a 9 0'clock appointment, my digital watch says it's 9:50, and I have to do the math mentally. My analog watch displays an arc that is faster to interpret.

Analog shows a "rate of change" better than a digital display. By the time you read the number, you have already exceeded the limit (Think EGT, Torque, RPM, maybe speed).

Ever notice that your "digital display" ("electronic display", in this case) actually displays an analog gauge?

"Human factors" has , is , and will always be a factor in all the future accidents. The interface between man and machine will always be a problem.

[Volume]

"Human factors" has , is , and will always be a factor in all the future accidents. The interface between man and machine will always be a problem.

Absolutely correct. However, people do change with times. Modern People grow up with digital devices. Modern people develop a totally different style of receiving and processing information. Therefore of course Human Factors will allways be a factor, but the perfect human interface will allways change. The "Dos Generation" will find it easy to press three keys at a time, the iPhone Generation will find it easy to swipe across a touch screen and vice versa. Some peple will find it easier to have the same key with the same function at the same place all the time, others will find it easier to always have the most important key in every situation on top. Some find it easier to recognize a switch position with a glance, others find it easier to recognize it by its color changing with its setting. Some will be more alarmed by a warning light, some by a sound. I never found speed tapes easy to read, and probably never will. The main issue of Human Factors is that there is not a single standardized human on this planet...

[RAT 5]

An analog watch quickly shows the "arc". For a 9 0'clock appointment, my digital watch says it's 9:50, and I have to do the math mentally. My analog watch displays an arc that is faster to interpret.

Either watch display you are late.

You are also aiding the tape/command bug argument. In your case you had to know the appointment was at 09.00. You had a CMD bug in your brain, it was not visible. Thus you had to first identify 09.00 on the clock face, then interpret the current time and visually decide the error. On a tape there is a CMD bug visible, your current parameter is visible and the error is there at a glance. Even on round dials in big jets, in the latter days I flew them, there was a V2 bug & a Vref bug that was set manually. Only in Cherokees etc. did we fly fixed memory speeds in critical phases. True, on B732's the Vfly was about 4-5 O'clock as we flew about the same weight every time, but there was still a bug set; thus there was a visible datum and error arc. One is an arc and the other linear. A common argument is 'the rate of change is more understandable on a dial than a tape'. True, when the dial is unwinding or winding up at very high speed. Neither is common on a passenger jet during normal ops. I wonder what the reaction was when the move from 3 pointer altimeters to a combination of digital and single pinter was made? There is no doubt the latter was a major safety enhancement. Sometimes, with pointers, less is more.
Imagine the old T-scan. You had to interpret the ASI needle, the VSI needle, the Alitmeter needle, and perhaps even a VOR/ADF needle. All were in different 'clock' positions. That is a lot of brain power and skill. Now you can scan/glance across the displays and see if the a/c bug = CMD bug. The brain power required is far less and allows much more time to assess and decide. It allows more time to maintain better SA; it is so much more relaxing and allows a better overview of the operation. Specific errors in all the performance parameters are more evident with less work. What's not to like about that?
I flew B767 in the early days of speed tapes. One a/c we had had both ASI & speed tape; another only speed tape. By luck, or bad luck, I seemed to fly the ASI a/c mostly. I found myself looking at the ASI: old habits. Then I flew the other tape only a/c with an LTC. He took the time & trouble to explain in depth how to use the speed and all that it portrayed. The mists lifted, the fog cleared and I was converted. More importantly I then knew how to teach it myself.
To the sceptics we have to "agree to disagree". To those who say a pilot should be aware of the numbers; I agree, but in a different way perhaps. I know what I expect to see as Vr & V2 and Vref after a calculation; also N1% for takeoff. It's a mental 'gross error' check that I've adopted after years of seeing the computer calculations. If I agree and accept the number then I fly the CMD bug it gives. There is no doubt that this 'gross error' check is not part of the culture of todays cadets. Incidents have happened because of errors that went un-noticed. This opens up a whole other debate about blindly accepting answers from computers/calculators etc. That has been thrashed before, so I do not wish to resurrect it.

[Jwscud]

I am from the younger generation and I still prefer an analogue watch.

This is however because (a) I'm not a hipster and (b) this isn't the 1980s.

Surely as pilots we should have massive diameter overly heavy and complicated watches with E6Bs built in?