Aircraft Instruments Vs Car Instruments and readability

[FlightDream111]

Update

Back to this thread after some time.

The suggestion that GA displays are cluttered seem to be supported by this report:

NTSB Glass Cockpits Vs Conventional No Better Safety Record

Also here:

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/glass-...fit-study-says

As "thing" said :

This is where glass falls down IMO. Too much stuff in too much detail.

I will comment on the other posts later.

[AerocatS2A]

The report says that glass cockpits are correlated with more accidents which seems to go against your original post.

[NutLoose]

Instrument panel set at 90 degrees so the pilot is looking at the gauges at a 30 - 45 degree angle




the Wessex had its angled because of that

[stilton]

Every transport aircraft I have flown had it's main instrument panel canted towards the pilots.

[FlightDream111]

Comments on Comments

Comments on the replies received so far:

2 sheds:

May I commend to your attention "The Aircraft Cockpit" by LFE Coombs - report back when you have read it!

I purchased the book on Kindle and read it - it is more of a history of aircraft ergonomics than a study, however very interesting how early aircraft controls were set up.

EDMJ:

Why would I want a "777PFD" when there are plenty of those things around tailored for small aircraft (google "Aspen" and "G1000")?

Just google also 777PFD and compare what you see - which is less cluttered?

Evolution 2000 | Products | Aspen Avionics

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mond_DA-42.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_c...80_cockpit.jpg

(could not find a clearer picture from public domain sites)

I personally find the first two cluttered, confusing to read and tiring.

OhNoCB:

OP:

The altimeter is always difficult to read with its three overlapping white colored pointers

This is true, and while you do get used to it I believe it is universally recognised to be an issue.

Well yes, the point is no that it was found to be confusing in use, but that from the first day of use, and at the design stages, it should have been found to be confusing and an alternate design should have been adopted.

Even today, following a 'design for use' and 'user friendly' goals in designing instruments could reduce much confusion. My impression is that the automobile instruments have been improved not only due to customer demand but the frequent changes to the designs - with each year's model. Putting aside any user considerations, aircraft components tend to take longer to be redesigned and aircraft tend to stay in service longer.

AndrewMcD is right when he says:

In reality most basic aircraft - and certainly flight school planes - are working off designs that are decades old. In fact in the case of most trainer aircraft the planes themselves are decades old so inevitably the ergonomics are going to look dated - it's because they are!

darkroomsource makes the point about glare from angled instruments and instrument panels, this may be the case:

So to summarize, have quick look at these automotive and aircraft instruments indicating speed only:

ASI:
Airspeed indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speedometer
Speedometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In terms of readability - size, colors, lighting, letter and numeric fonts I would say the speedometer is easier to read.

Compare also the electronic flight display here:

Electronic flight instrument system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which one do you find easier to read?

That done, I may just design my own panel (on the sim) and put it up here for comments.

[FlightDream111]

The report says that glass cockpits are correlated with more accidents which seems to go against your original post.

Well I agree that they are more cluttered and difficult to read.

If they were developed by a software company the interface may have looked different.

[Wirbelsturm]

You want cluttered and haphazard have a look in the front of the FRS1 Harrier.

That bl**dy thing was a nightmare!!!! If the HUD went down you could only rely on the main artificial horizon, trying to scan the rest was next to impossible!

Lookout and fly visually!

[FlightDream111]

Harrier Cockpit

You mean like this one?

Airfix 1:24 BAe Sea Harrier FRS-1 - Page 2 - International Scale Modeller

The GR3 and the FRS mk1, both have unimaginable instrument panels, what were they thinking?

Let's see what the Spitfire panels were like - did they go backwards?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...re_cockpit.jpg

Seems better without that big scope in the middle. I guess the problem lies in the design process? Not enough pilot involvement? No process for continuous improvement?

[Wirbelsturm]

You mean like this one?

Yep, that's the one.

You could fly straight and level, well just about, as long as the pegasus didn't start mucking about! :-)

Happy days.

[oldpax]

Pilots favourite.

While in the RAF I worked briefly on Comets (transit Ksar)and in one c..kpit the captain had a nut hanging on a bit of string ,said it was useful and the only inst that woudnt fail!!!! I suppose it was the same as the artificial horizon!

[AerocatS2A]

Originally Posted by FlightDream111

Just google also 777PFD and compare what you see - which is less cluttered?

Evolution 2000 | Products | Aspen Avionics

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mond_DA-42.jpg

Glass cockpit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(could not find a clearer picture from public domain sites)

I personally find the first two cluttered, confusing to read and tiring.

In your original post you complained about the analogue gauges, how they weren't in very good positions, and you felt the gauges themselves don't present their information very well. As a point of reference you said the 777 PFD was much better. Well, all those GA glass cockpits, the G1000, Evolution 2000 etc, are the result of taking what people like about an airline cockpit and applying it to a GA cockpit. It is basically what you were asking for. The result is apparently more crashes (exactly why that is so is up for debate I guess.) What I take from that is that the old analogue gauges were just fine, or at least that upgrading what are mainly VFR aircraft with instrumentation with a strong IFR pedigree is not necessarily a step in the right direction.

Well yes, the point is no that it was found to be confusing in use, but that from the first day of use, and at the design stages, it should have been found to be confusing and an alternate design should have been adopted.

Even today, following a 'design for use' and 'user friendly' goals in designing instruments could reduce much confusion. My impression is that the automobile instruments have been improved not only due to customer demand but the frequent changes to the designs - with each year's model. Putting aside any user considerations, aircraft components tend to take longer to be redesigned and aircraft tend to stay in service longer.

At the design stages of the altimeter it was probably the best they could do with the technology they had at the time. And there have been continual improvements since then.

There have been general improvements to instrument presentation on GA aircraft. Like automotive instrumentation it has been driven by changes in technology and consumer demand. The Garmin 1000 style of GA glass cockpit is the result of that process.

So to summarize, have quick look at these automotive and aircraft instruments indicating speed only:

ASI:
Airspeed indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speedometer
Speedometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In terms of readability - size, colors, lighting, letter and numeric fonts I would say the speedometer is easier to read.

Contrary to what you say (that I have bolded), these instruments do not display just speed. The automotive one does, but the airspeed indicator has airspeed in MPH, airspeed in knots, and a window for inputting temperature in order to calculate true airspeed which is displayed in its own scale for an appropriate portion of the instrument. There is also markings for the flap up stalling speed, the flap down stalling speed, the maximum flap extended speed, the normal operating speed range, the smooth air only speed range, and the never exceed speed.

It seems that while I was writing this, both links now go to slightly different pictures of instruments. To be clear I was referring to the Aston Martin GIF, and the ASI presented below:

Speedometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Airspeed indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go ahead and design an airspeed indicator that looks like the Aston Martin one but that has all of the information available on the air speed indicator. I think you will very quickly lose the simplicity of the Aston Martin design.

If you'd prefer to talk about the instruments currently linked from your post, first I disagree, there is nothing inherently better about the Ford Fondeo speedo compared to the ASI. Also it is easy enough to find simple ASI designs. The following is very easy to read and includes a Mach display, a dynamic max operating indicator, and an air speed indicator. It also includes adjustable bugs for setting the various reference speeds for a take-off and landing.

Airspeed indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compare also the electronic flight display here:

Electronic flight instrument system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which one do you find easier to read?

They all present different information and can't be compared. If you want to talk only about the speed tape part of the PFD, well there are pros and cons to the speed tape presentation as opposed to a traditional ASI. On the pro side, it displays a lot of information in a relatively uncluttered way, it can show a trend vector to show how much you are accelerating, and it can show a much more precise speed than a mechanical ASI. The downside is that it is more difficult to get an immediate sense of your approximate speed with a quick glance, it requires you to read and interpret the numbers, you also can't see all of the bugged speeds at once as some of them are off the scale at any one time, finally there is an issue with the speed tape and altimeter tape combination that can give the impression of pitch and roll movements based on the scrolling of the tapes.

That done, I may just design my own panel (on the sim) and put it up here for comments.

I'd be interested to see the results.

I regularly use the following types of air speed indicator. Which do you think I prefer, and why?

[FlightDream111]

The other extreme?

I had to post this one:

Bell Unveils Single-screen V-280 Cockpit | Defense News: Aviation International News

"Perhaps the giant display’s most impressive ability is to integrate data from the PDAS to provide a giant outside window with synthetic vision during limited or zero-visibility situations. “It’s basically the same as looking outside. That is definitely where we are headed with this display,” "

This is not the cockpit display I had in mind to design, but will it work?

Why not have LCDs instead of windows and show simulated scenery based on position? (Like Flight Simulator). Perpertual VFR.

More images:

http://www.miltechmag.com/2015/03/be...80-single.html

Will reply to other posts later.

[AerocatS2A]

Originally Posted by FlightDream111

I had to post this one:

Bell Unveils Single-screen V-280 Cockpit | Defense News: Aviation International News

This is not the cockpit display I had in mind to design, but will it work?

Nobody knows, they will have to test it and find out.

Why not have LCDs instead of windows and show simulated scenery based on position? (Like Flight Simulator). Perpertual VFR.

Lets see. So you want to spend a heap of money to replace windows with something that simulates windows? You know, generally, if you have the real thing available, you just use it. It's like, if I had a B737 and a B737 simulator, and the B737 simulator is more expensive to run than the real B737, why would I ever considered using the simulator?

[Exnomad]

One chap I used to woirk with had installed an ASI and artificial horizon in his car.

[thing]

I have SkyDemon on my iPhone and often switch it on in the car for a lark. It's brilliant busting airspace and getting away with it.

To the OP; I can't quite work out what sort of flying you do on the sim, are you flying heavy jets or light aircraft or a combination of both? You mention switching the autopilot on; very few light aircraft have an autopilot. I fly a reasonable selection of types and only one of them has an autopilot, and that is more of an unusual attitude generator than an autopilot.... I leave it off unless I want to amuse myself with it's attempts to fly anywhere but where I want to go.

Flying light aircraft is a completely different ball game to flying a big jet, apart from the obvious dynamic differences. You should be able to cope with a complete instrument failure in a light aircraft and still be able to land safely. The ASI does give you airspeed but so does the sound of the slipstream, the weird and wonderful noises that different vents and intakes on the aircraft make at certain speeds and how the controls feel. I don't need an altimeter to land VFR, no qualified pilot does, you do it by looking out the window. You fly mostly by feel and the picture out of the window looking right. You get none of this on a flight sim. I'm not knocking flight sims by the way, they are good fun but do they recreate the sensations of flight? Well no, how can they?

Edit: Having seen the money, time and effort that some people put into their sim rigs they probably spend more on simming than I do flying. Each to their own though.

[FlightDream111]

AerocatS2A

Well, all those GA glass cockpits, the G1000, Evolution 2000 etc, are the result of taking what people like about an airline cockpit and applying it to a GA cockpit.

Well the GA ones are hugely cluttered and not like the ones on an airliner, in my opinion. I dread the thought of having to navigate those in turbulence or at night but that's just an opinion. Maybe that is what is causing the problem.

I accept your comments about what is easier to read, after all you are speaking from expereince.

I regularly use the following types of air speed indicator. Which do you think I prefer, and why?

From what you have said it seems you prefer the round one with bugs - but that one is from a light twin , not from a jet , I think.

[FlightDream111]

To the OP; I can't quite work out what sort of flying you do on the sim, are you flying heavy jets or light aircraft or a combination of both?

Just a note I have been up in several light aircraft - C152, 172, Piper Arrow, oh and a few stalls in the 152 as well. I have handled the controls as well as far as I remeber they were very heavy and sloppy at the same time.

OK on the sim - C172, PA24 (My favourite fast cruiser), Twin Otter, and Dash 8 -300. Wow I sound like a real pilot. The heavy jets I have not in any way mastered yet.

You mention switching the autopilot on; very few light aircraft have an autopilot. I fly a reasonable selection of types and only one of them has an autopilot, and that is more of an unusual attitude generator than an autopilot.... I leave it off unless I want to amuse myself with it's attempts to fly anywhere but where I want to go.

The C172 has an autopilot as well as the PA24. It's of course again classically non-intuitive, switch it on and there are several identical buttons that change between HDG, RDL and the vertical speed automatically captures the current vertical speed you are at.

Ah here it is : Bendix/King KAP140 Autopilot - FlightGear wiki

Flying light aircraft is a completely different ball game to flying a big jet, apart from the obvious dynamic differences. You should be able to cope with a complete instrument failure in a light aircraft and still be able to land safely. The ASI does give you airspeed but so does the sound of the slipstream, the weird and wonderful noises that different vents and intakes on the aircraft make at certain speeds and how the controls feel. I don't need an altimeter to land VFR, no qualified pilot does, you do it by looking out the window. You fly mostly by feel and the picture out of the window looking right. You get none of this on a flight sim. I'm not knocking flight sims by the way, they are good fun but do they recreate the sensations of flight? Well no, how can they?

I admit flying the sim is completely usuited to 'flying by looking outside'. Maybe VR Glassses are the way to go. Virtual Reality. Might give me vertigo, though.

Edit: Having seen the money, time and effort that some people put into their sim rigs they probably spend more on simming than I do flying. Each to their own though.

It's not out of reach financially then, not for me either, however there is the risk, which will not be discussed here.

Suffice to say, the older you are, the less risk you want to take. I mean would accompany a friend pilot in a single engined plane over snow capped mountains .. did it once, long time ago.

[FlightDream111]

The ICON cockpit

Here is an aircraft cockpit that looks more like a car: the Icon

I like it, now, what do you pilots think?

http://www.viezine.com/vie/wp-conten...t-Interior.jpg



Also, more information here about cockpit design:

Cockpit Design and Human Factors - AviationKnowledge

[AerocatS2A]

Originally Posted by FlightDream111

Here is an aircraft cockpit that looks more like a car: the Icon

I like it, now, what do you pilots think?

http://www.viezine.com/vie/wp-conten...t-Interior.jpg

I like it too. But it's only good for VFR and seems to have a fixed pitch prop. If you want to fly it IFR you'd need to find space for an HSI, a VSI, and a turn coordinator or second AH. Upgrade the engine and you need space for a manifold pressure gauge. Suddenly the nice clean design becomes cluttered and starts to look more like a traditional cockpit layout.

[FlightDream111]

Aircraft Instruments, Car Instruments, VFR and IFR

I didn't notice the lack of VSI on the ICON panel.

Let's see if I have got this right - light aircraft are flown mostly VFR, that is, looking outside like when driving a car. One may look at the speedometer to see how fast one is going, or the fuel gauge, but the rest is visual. A striking example of this was a recent Red Bull Air Race crash in which the pilot says 'I broke my own rule and looked into the turn' I take it he lost his visual reference: in any case he banked past vertical and levelled the wings just in time to crash into the water. Fast ailerons on that thing. He was using any of the instruments, I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adilson_Kindlemann

IFR is like driving your car in a fog? Quite unnerving. I remember being in a commercial airliner in a night flight and there was no way of telling where we were or what way the wings or nose was pointing, granted there were not many possiblities, but it was very unsettling.

Since in IFR all you have are your instruments. This is where I would guess they should be nice and large and easy to read.

Take a look at this syntheric vision panel. Nice and large, however the numerals seem too small, and not striking enough. My other contention is that a curved dial is easier to 'place' than a straight up and down ribbon readout as seen here. For example for the ASI readout on the left side of the display.

http://www.aviationnews.eu/blog/wp-c...ew-cockpit.jpg