Aircraft Instruments Vs Car Instruments and readability
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: SL
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft Instruments Vs Car Instruments and readability
I am not a pilot, but an aviation enthusiast. My flight time has been limited to a few hours as a front seat passenger in a Cessna 152 or 172 and handling of the controls for a few moments.
I am however an avid Flight Simulator (student) pilot, using an open source flight simulator called Flight Gear. My favourite flights at the moment are in a Cessna 172p or a Piper PA 28 or the Commanche practicing what I know about flight navigation. It is a rewarding experience to take off, dialing the heading to the autopilot and being able to locate a remote airport and then land. From what I remember the effect of the simulator is quite realistic.
After many years of simulator flying, viewing innumerable cockpit photos and videos, and inspecting actual museum aircraft at close quarters, I am still left with an impression that there is a vast difference in ergonomics between automobile instrument panels and those of aircraft flight instruments.
Obviously pilots are required to go through extensive training, not the least of which is the use of flight instruments. Therefore they are unlikely to encounter any difficulty. For the casual observer, however, the instruments in aircraft, the steam gauges as they are, are confusing, not only in their number but in their haphazard arrangement and general readability or lack thereof as compared to the say the speedometers and tachometers of any recent model automobile.
Could it be that the aircraft flight instrument industry has lagged far behind in ergonomic instrumentation? The new large aircraft, it must be admitted such as the 777 have attractive, highly functional looking instrument flight instrument systems, and cannot be much faulted in my opinion.
If one is to judge from appearances, then, looking at these same steam gauges in light aircraft could it be that except for the new glass cockpits in use, be actually the ergonomic nightmare that they appear to be?
Some obvious ergonomic faults:
I would appreciate the pilot’s point of view on these areas – hopefully we could see more ergonomic glass as well as steam gauge instruments in the future like those in automobiles?
I am however an avid Flight Simulator (student) pilot, using an open source flight simulator called Flight Gear. My favourite flights at the moment are in a Cessna 172p or a Piper PA 28 or the Commanche practicing what I know about flight navigation. It is a rewarding experience to take off, dialing the heading to the autopilot and being able to locate a remote airport and then land. From what I remember the effect of the simulator is quite realistic.
After many years of simulator flying, viewing innumerable cockpit photos and videos, and inspecting actual museum aircraft at close quarters, I am still left with an impression that there is a vast difference in ergonomics between automobile instrument panels and those of aircraft flight instruments.
Obviously pilots are required to go through extensive training, not the least of which is the use of flight instruments. Therefore they are unlikely to encounter any difficulty. For the casual observer, however, the instruments in aircraft, the steam gauges as they are, are confusing, not only in their number but in their haphazard arrangement and general readability or lack thereof as compared to the say the speedometers and tachometers of any recent model automobile.
Could it be that the aircraft flight instrument industry has lagged far behind in ergonomic instrumentation? The new large aircraft, it must be admitted such as the 777 have attractive, highly functional looking instrument flight instrument systems, and cannot be much faulted in my opinion.
If one is to judge from appearances, then, looking at these same steam gauges in light aircraft could it be that except for the new glass cockpits in use, be actually the ergonomic nightmare that they appear to be?
Some obvious ergonomic faults:
- Instrument panel set at 90 degrees so the pilot is looking at the gauges at a 30 - 45 degree angle
- The ASI is to the left extreme of the pilot
- The altimeter is always difficult to read with its three overlapping white colored pointers
- The ASI reads from top right down to top left up again, at least the VSI is spared this fate, only indicating up and down.
- The RPM gauge is to the extreme right of the cockpit our lower down in the panel
- The panels seem excessively high in some aircraft
I would appreciate the pilot’s point of view on these areas – hopefully we could see more ergonomic glass as well as steam gauge instruments in the future like those in automobiles?
There is generally nothing "haphazard" about the arrangement of instruments on older aircraft. The basic flight instruments should all follow the standard "T" arrangment.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: home @ 103E
Age: 59
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the absence of a visible horizon in the front window, the most important instrument is at the T intersection, followed by what's left & right of it and then what's below it. That is intentional.
Even the fancy glass cockpits of modern aircraft incorporate this basic T so that pilots can maintain the same scan sequence.
Cars by & large operate in 2 dimensions, so require less essential instruments.
Even the fancy glass cockpits of modern aircraft incorporate this basic T so that pilots can maintain the same scan sequence.
Cars by & large operate in 2 dimensions, so require less essential instruments.
There are lots of apps around that will 'mimic' aircraft conditions in a car. The free one I use for my iphone is called 'Altimeter' but as it's free and does its job. It tells you the height above sea level and the compass position. Be prepared to be bombarded with ads. It does it's job though.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The altimeter is always difficult to read with its three overlapping white colored pointers
FlightDream111
You do not seem to have applied much thought or logic before making a definitive statement about "some obvious ergonomic faults." E.g. "The ASI is to the left extreme of the pilot" - so what? I think that you are "flying" your simulator aircraft with the mindset of a car driver.
Equally, how do you arrive at the conclusion that the presentation in a 777 "cannot be much faulted in my opinion"?
May I commend to your attention "The Aircraft Cockpit" by LFE Coombs - report back when you have read it!
2 s
You do not seem to have applied much thought or logic before making a definitive statement about "some obvious ergonomic faults." E.g. "The ASI is to the left extreme of the pilot" - so what? I think that you are "flying" your simulator aircraft with the mindset of a car driver.
Equally, how do you arrive at the conclusion that the presentation in a 777 "cannot be much faulted in my opinion"?
May I commend to your attention "The Aircraft Cockpit" by LFE Coombs - report back when you have read it!
2 s
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: SL
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that you are "flying" your simulator aircraft with the mindset of a car driver.
That's just one of my points: Is it not easier to make aircraft panels follow the same advanced ergonomics as modern day cars, and will the transition be easier for those who already drive cars before they learn to fly? Would you prefer the ASI to read more like a car speedometer - left to right and tracing a single wide arc ?
I am asking because I do not know how pilots view this.
Equally, how do you arrive at the conclusion that the presentation in a 777 "cannot be much faulted in my opinion"?
Easy -it's my opinion.
May I commend to your attention "The Aircraft Cockpit" by LFE Coombs - report back when you have read it!
Well before that, let me be more specific with my questions.
Those of you who are pilots would you prefer to have 777 PFD staring at you from the instrument panel of your Cessna 172 or Piper PA-28 light plane in place of steam gauges canted helpfully upwards toward? Both in terms of convenience and safety?
Do you find the GA glass displays seem cluttered compared to those of big jets?
Is it not easier to make aircraft panels follow the same advanced ergonomics as modern day cars, and will the transition be easier for those who already drive cars before they learn to fly?
You don't need any instruments in a car to complete the drive alive, when flying IFR you need quite a few to ensure the same outcome. You don't have to look at any in a particular order either. Most of them don't even have any coolant temperature and/or oil pressure gauges any more either, which leaves a lot of space for "creativity". I fly an aircraft with an engine which is partially liquid cooled. It has to achieve a certain coolant and oil temperature before you start taxying, do I'd need some indication of these parameters. The oil pressure gauge provides vital trend information about the engine's health, so I'f prefer to have that too. And there are many other examples.
Additionally, angling parts of an instrument panel towards the left seat would not please an instructor in the right seat.
While the General Aviation industry could learn a lot from automotive technology (in fact they are probably very well aware of what is going on there, but it's too costly to certify or too heavy), it wouldn't be how to lay an instrument panel or a PFD. Seats, restraint systems, interior panels and engine technology is more likely to spring to mind. And most of it adds weight anyway.
Those of you who are pilots would you prefer to have 777 PFD staring at you from the instrument panel of your Cessna 172 or Piper PA-28 light plane in place of steam gauges canted helpfully upwards toward? Both in terms of convenience and safety? Do you find the GA glass displays seem cluttered compared to those of big jets?
Last edited by EDMJ; 23rd Jan 2014 at 10:53.
I see some rather dismissive posts when the OP made some intelligent observations from a "fresh pair of eyes" (and on the correct forum for a non-professional).
Long exposure may make the T setup seem second nature but it is always worth questioning if it is the ideal. It is noteworthy that HUD's and "glass cockpits" see fit not to imitate the steam gauges but come up with something more integrated, and arguably more ergonomic.
Many, many millions are spend on car ergonomics and not always from the same cost driver that seems to be the imperative of aircraft design. We should be prepared to accept they may have the occasional good idea which may be transferable.
Long exposure may make the T setup seem second nature but it is always worth questioning if it is the ideal. It is noteworthy that HUD's and "glass cockpits" see fit not to imitate the steam gauges but come up with something more integrated, and arguably more ergonomic.
Many, many millions are spend on car ergonomics and not always from the same cost driver that seems to be the imperative of aircraft design. We should be prepared to accept they may have the occasional good idea which may be transferable.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: SL
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compare these images
Thank you for your kind words, "Don't Hang Up".
When I mentioned slanting the instruments I meant slanting them up around the horizontal axis only, like the panels of big jets.
Try this: search on Google for the following, select "images" for each , and then compare the indicators you see.
Which ones are easier to read?
Search words:
Update: It would appear that I have been somewhat vindicated. In a magazine article I came across the aircraft listed below, if you look at the instrument panel below, you would find that the ASI does read from left to right (like a speedometer). The green and white arcs (which in my opinion should be indicated by a large colored dot) are on the left side of the instrument.
Fläming Air English Site - Our aircraft products
See photos under FA 01 S Smaragd Ul/Ml Sensing
When I mentioned slanting the instruments I meant slanting them up around the horizontal axis only, like the panels of big jets.
Try this: search on Google for the following, select "images" for each , and then compare the indicators you see.
Which ones are easier to read?
Search words:
- Speedometer
- Vintage Speedometer
- Air Speed Indicator
- Air Speed Indicator Sopwith Camel
Update: It would appear that I have been somewhat vindicated. In a magazine article I came across the aircraft listed below, if you look at the instrument panel below, you would find that the ASI does read from left to right (like a speedometer). The green and white arcs (which in my opinion should be indicated by a large colored dot) are on the left side of the instrument.
Fläming Air English Site - Our aircraft products
See photos under FA 01 S Smaragd Ul/Ml Sensing
Last edited by FlightDream111; 4th Feb 2014 at 23:14. Reason: New Information
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: KBOS
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition
The gauge setup is also to keep your eyes moving from side to side, to outside and back again. that's to keep you from staring at one one gauge for long periods of time and falling asleep or losing spacial reality.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think, OP, that if you spent some time in IFR training you would soon learn to appreciate the standard layout of the "big 6" instruments.
In cars, every maker has a different idea of what constitutes the best ergonomics. It changes with the whims of the day. And you don't actually have to have any of the instruments to safely drive your car.
Your survival in IMC depends on the instruments and your ability to process the information they provide. Imagine learning IFR flying in one aircraft, then switching to another the next day. Disaster looms.
In cars, every maker has a different idea of what constitutes the best ergonomics. It changes with the whims of the day. And you don't actually have to have any of the instruments to safely drive your car.
Your survival in IMC depends on the instruments and your ability to process the information they provide. Imagine learning IFR flying in one aircraft, then switching to another the next day. Disaster looms.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear original poster
you are looking at a computer generated display of the instruments, not the real plane. you mentioned you sat in the passenger seat of the real plane, until you have sat and flown from the pilot's seat, you really have no idea.
instruments are SCANNED and in some ways this is different than READING them. the Tachometer (RPM) is not scanned all the time, especially when PERFORMANCE of the plane is meeting expectations.
Altimeters do take some understanding on how to read. First you see if you are above or below 10,000'. Then above or below 1000' and finally in the hundreds and less. Have you seen the zebra stripe?
The steam gauges are really quite readable and the already mentioned "T" setup is really very good. In most planes built in the last 40 years the T is the Norm. Prior to that it might have been haphazard a bit.
Look at the airspeed indicator. IF it is in the 12 o'clock to 2 o'clock the position the NOSE of the plane is probably "UP". IF it is from the 3 o'clock to 8 o'clock position the nose is level to down. SO as you look at it, you can tell UP or DOWN of the nose in your SCan. (this might be tough to understand)
The instruments are also placed in such a way so as to make you want to LOOK OUT THE WINDSHIELD which in MOST flying is what you should be doing most of the time.
I know some of this doesn't make sense. I mean, who uses the airspeed to judge if the nose is up or down...but it is useful ONCE you understand the plane and you really can't until you have taken some lessons or at least read, "STICK AND RUDDER".
good luck and remember, wiser minds than yours have come up with the instruments!
you are looking at a computer generated display of the instruments, not the real plane. you mentioned you sat in the passenger seat of the real plane, until you have sat and flown from the pilot's seat, you really have no idea.
instruments are SCANNED and in some ways this is different than READING them. the Tachometer (RPM) is not scanned all the time, especially when PERFORMANCE of the plane is meeting expectations.
Altimeters do take some understanding on how to read. First you see if you are above or below 10,000'. Then above or below 1000' and finally in the hundreds and less. Have you seen the zebra stripe?
The steam gauges are really quite readable and the already mentioned "T" setup is really very good. In most planes built in the last 40 years the T is the Norm. Prior to that it might have been haphazard a bit.
Look at the airspeed indicator. IF it is in the 12 o'clock to 2 o'clock the position the NOSE of the plane is probably "UP". IF it is from the 3 o'clock to 8 o'clock position the nose is level to down. SO as you look at it, you can tell UP or DOWN of the nose in your SCan. (this might be tough to understand)
The instruments are also placed in such a way so as to make you want to LOOK OUT THE WINDSHIELD which in MOST flying is what you should be doing most of the time.
I know some of this doesn't make sense. I mean, who uses the airspeed to judge if the nose is up or down...but it is useful ONCE you understand the plane and you really can't until you have taken some lessons or at least read, "STICK AND RUDDER".
good luck and remember, wiser minds than yours have come up with the instruments!
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: EU
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instrument panel set at 90 degrees so the pilot is looking at the gauges at a 30 - 45 degree angle
I have genuinely never found this a problem. If they were tilted up a bit I wouldn't complain but I don't see an issue with it now. I would say that the eye line to the main instruments tends to be less than 30-45 degrees in most aircraft (although I am not the tallest)
The ASI is to the left extreme of the pilot
Calling it the extreme left makes it sound like it is way out of view, in fact it is right beside the instrument that (when flying on instruments) you concentrate on the most.
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. In most aircraft that will often be flying higher than 10,000' they have different altimeters (drum type). In fact in one company I used to work for flying older aircraft for public transport, we had the older 3 point altimeters and had an exemption to fly with them, limited to operations below 10,000'.
The ASI reads from top right down to top left up again, at least the VSI is spared this fate, only indicating up and down.
Depends on the aircraft and as glass panels are becoming more and more common its normally a 'tape' display. I don't see any problem with where the pointer starts and stops, and frankly I always assumed (dangerous I know) that the slow speed was nearest the AI because you would want to focus more attention on airspeed during slow speed regimes, and having the pointer nearest the AI in that regime makes sense to me.
The RPM gauge is to the extreme right of the cockpit our lower down in the panel
The panels seem excessively high in some aircraft
Again this is aircraft dependent but it tends to be further than other instruments because it is less important. Once you have set the pitch and power for a phase of flight it only needs to occasional glance, therefore the more important instruments are better positioned.
I have genuinely never found this a problem. If they were tilted up a bit I wouldn't complain but I don't see an issue with it now. I would say that the eye line to the main instruments tends to be less than 30-45 degrees in most aircraft (although I am not the tallest)
The ASI is to the left extreme of the pilot
Calling it the extreme left makes it sound like it is way out of view, in fact it is right beside the instrument that (when flying on instruments) you concentrate on the most.
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. In most aircraft that will often be flying higher than 10,000' they have different altimeters (drum type). In fact in one company I used to work for flying older aircraft for public transport, we had the older 3 point altimeters and had an exemption to fly with them, limited to operations below 10,000'.
The ASI reads from top right down to top left up again, at least the VSI is spared this fate, only indicating up and down.
Depends on the aircraft and as glass panels are becoming more and more common its normally a 'tape' display. I don't see any problem with where the pointer starts and stops, and frankly I always assumed (dangerous I know) that the slow speed was nearest the AI because you would want to focus more attention on airspeed during slow speed regimes, and having the pointer nearest the AI in that regime makes sense to me.
The RPM gauge is to the extreme right of the cockpit our lower down in the panel
The panels seem excessively high in some aircraft
Again this is aircraft dependent but it tends to be further than other instruments because it is less important. Once you have set the pitch and power for a phase of flight it only needs to occasional glance, therefore the more important instruments are better positioned.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no problem with steam gauges or altimeters for that matter. It's just what you get used to. Glass cockpits, Garmin 1000's and the like look too cluttered to me. There's a whole shipload of information on them that you don't really need when flying VFR, plus, and this is a very important plus, with a steam gauge and pointer you don't read what the pointer says, you look at it's position. You know what it is supposed to look like when everything is normal. This is where glass falls down IMO. Too much stuff in too much detail.
Any time with your head in the cockpit when flying VFR is bad, you need to glance and that should be enough. There seems to be a tendency to make light aircraft look like mini airliners these days and I think a lot of it is to make light aircraft pilots feel that they are flying a mini airliner. What it does is make pilots fiddle with the toys instead of having eyes out of the cockpit. They are still in a SEP probably with an engine that was designed 70 years ago. It's not an A380. Just my opinion obviously.
Flying an IFR approach in bad weather is a different ball game obviously and the instruments you need are right there in front of your eyes where they should be.
Aircraft are aircraft and cars are cars, both with different needs in terms of instrumentation.
Any time with your head in the cockpit when flying VFR is bad, you need to glance and that should be enough. There seems to be a tendency to make light aircraft look like mini airliners these days and I think a lot of it is to make light aircraft pilots feel that they are flying a mini airliner. What it does is make pilots fiddle with the toys instead of having eyes out of the cockpit. They are still in a SEP probably with an engine that was designed 70 years ago. It's not an A380. Just my opinion obviously.
Flying an IFR approach in bad weather is a different ball game obviously and the instruments you need are right there in front of your eyes where they should be.
Aircraft are aircraft and cars are cars, both with different needs in terms of instrumentation.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still a low hours PPL student so perhaps coming to this with a fresher pair of eyes than some.
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!
The reality of it though is that they are highly functional, having key dials in the same relative position means that ingrained scan patterns aren't interrupted. And absolute precision on the instruments is often irrelevant -a glance at your ASI to make sure the needle is roughly at 65kts for landing is enough - if you are indicating at 63 or 67 doesn't really matter as long as attitude is right and a more major fluctuation in speed that would be relevant is easily spotted. I think one of my ground school books also said that analogue dials are faster to read than digital numbers because you don't need to actually "read" them. Lastly tilting the gauges might cause glare from the sun which could be dangerous, by having the instruments flat this isn't an issue.
On a bit of a tangent one of the first questions my FI asked me before my first flight with him was if I played a lot of flight sims and he was relieved when I said no - apparently those who go to a PPL from sims spend all of thier time fixated on the instruments and no time looking outside (which is kind of the point in VFR). They also have a tendency to chase the needle rather than letting the plane fly. Genuinely no offence intended to the OP but I really don't understand why people spend that long on sims or watching videos and don't just go and do the real thing
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!
The reality of it though is that they are highly functional, having key dials in the same relative position means that ingrained scan patterns aren't interrupted. And absolute precision on the instruments is often irrelevant -a glance at your ASI to make sure the needle is roughly at 65kts for landing is enough - if you are indicating at 63 or 67 doesn't really matter as long as attitude is right and a more major fluctuation in speed that would be relevant is easily spotted. I think one of my ground school books also said that analogue dials are faster to read than digital numbers because you don't need to actually "read" them. Lastly tilting the gauges might cause glare from the sun which could be dangerous, by having the instruments flat this isn't an issue.
On a bit of a tangent one of the first questions my FI asked me before my first flight with him was if I played a lot of flight sims and he was relieved when I said no - apparently those who go to a PPL from sims spend all of thier time fixated on the instruments and no time looking outside (which is kind of the point in VFR). They also have a tendency to chase the needle rather than letting the plane fly. Genuinely no offence intended to the OP but I really don't understand why people spend that long on sims or watching videos and don't just go and do the real thing
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tamworth, UK / Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the "flat" gauges, whether panel or steam, where the pilot is viewing them at an angle is an advantage in most situations.
If the gauges were angled toward the pilot so that they are at a 90 degree angle, there would be more glare. Which is why automobiles have a glare shield over the gauges.
Which begs the question, why not put a glare shield on plane panels?
(some/most do have small glare shields)
It has to do with the size/shape/angle of the windows, the glare shield required would be quite large to cover all the gauges.
There are far more gauges in a plane panel than on a car, so a relatively small glareshield covers the gauges in a car, but compared to the size of the gauges the glare shield is quite large.
For a glare shield in a plane to be the same proportionate size, it would be huge. For example, on my car, the speedometer is about 7cm (3") in diameter, the glare shield is 12cm (5") deep. If I had a glareshield on the plane that covered the 3 gauges deep that are 5cm (2") in diameter (15cm - 6" - not including any space between gauges) it would have to be 24cm (10") deep (numbers and conversion approximate). And even then it would not take into account that the side windows on my car are higher than the gauges, but on many planes this is not the case.
As for the arrangement of the gauges, as already said they're in a standard "T" in modern airplanes (before the 70s it was common for different manufacturers to use different arrangements, even across different models).
There are far more instruments for flying than for driving, and the importance of the instruments is different for flying than for driving.
There are very few "idiot lights" in planes, although there are warning lights that are associated with a gauge. So there are gauges for everything from cylinder head temperature, to altimeter, which are not found in a car.
This "T" puts the most important instruments for instrument flying in an arrangement that is best suited for "scanning" the panel. When flying in instrument conditions, it's most important to keep the wings level, so the central instrument is the artificial horizon. In a car, you don't have to worry about this, so it's not in the car at all.
The air speed indicator, which you are so concerned about being on the far left, is far less important than keeping the wings level. It's used when climbing to ensure the right rate of climb. Otherwise, it's used to confirm that the other gauges are giving you the right information. (if the artificial horizon - I know I'll get corrected on calling it that - shows straight and level and you have established straight and level, but the airspeed is increasing, then you aren't flying straight and level, rather you are descending)
The altimeter is used when reaching the destination altitude, and when descending to an airport to know when to abort the approach, or when to expect certain other indications during an approach, but during normal level flight, it's used to confirm the attitude indicator.
The other instruments in the "T" or right next to the "T", also, are used to confirm, or to identify positioning, or to give headings for navigation.
Then there are all the engine instruments, which are used to establish a particular profile (climb, straight and level, etc.) and otherwise to verify that everything is "OK".
There's much more, and I've simplified things, but generally the attitude indicator is what you spend most of your time looking at (but not staring at) while you scan to the left, then back to the centre, then right, then centre, then down, then centre, every once in a while down and left or down and right, or over to the VOR or NDB or GPS.
As stated above, the best thing to do would be to either have an hour of instruction flying on instruments, or to read a book on instrument flying. This will clarify a lot about how to scan .vs. read instruments, and which ones support which other ones, and which ones are primary or secondary for which type of manouver.
If the gauges were angled toward the pilot so that they are at a 90 degree angle, there would be more glare. Which is why automobiles have a glare shield over the gauges.
Which begs the question, why not put a glare shield on plane panels?
(some/most do have small glare shields)
It has to do with the size/shape/angle of the windows, the glare shield required would be quite large to cover all the gauges.
There are far more gauges in a plane panel than on a car, so a relatively small glareshield covers the gauges in a car, but compared to the size of the gauges the glare shield is quite large.
For a glare shield in a plane to be the same proportionate size, it would be huge. For example, on my car, the speedometer is about 7cm (3") in diameter, the glare shield is 12cm (5") deep. If I had a glareshield on the plane that covered the 3 gauges deep that are 5cm (2") in diameter (15cm - 6" - not including any space between gauges) it would have to be 24cm (10") deep (numbers and conversion approximate). And even then it would not take into account that the side windows on my car are higher than the gauges, but on many planes this is not the case.
As for the arrangement of the gauges, as already said they're in a standard "T" in modern airplanes (before the 70s it was common for different manufacturers to use different arrangements, even across different models).
There are far more instruments for flying than for driving, and the importance of the instruments is different for flying than for driving.
There are very few "idiot lights" in planes, although there are warning lights that are associated with a gauge. So there are gauges for everything from cylinder head temperature, to altimeter, which are not found in a car.
This "T" puts the most important instruments for instrument flying in an arrangement that is best suited for "scanning" the panel. When flying in instrument conditions, it's most important to keep the wings level, so the central instrument is the artificial horizon. In a car, you don't have to worry about this, so it's not in the car at all.
The air speed indicator, which you are so concerned about being on the far left, is far less important than keeping the wings level. It's used when climbing to ensure the right rate of climb. Otherwise, it's used to confirm that the other gauges are giving you the right information. (if the artificial horizon - I know I'll get corrected on calling it that - shows straight and level and you have established straight and level, but the airspeed is increasing, then you aren't flying straight and level, rather you are descending)
The altimeter is used when reaching the destination altitude, and when descending to an airport to know when to abort the approach, or when to expect certain other indications during an approach, but during normal level flight, it's used to confirm the attitude indicator.
The other instruments in the "T" or right next to the "T", also, are used to confirm, or to identify positioning, or to give headings for navigation.
Then there are all the engine instruments, which are used to establish a particular profile (climb, straight and level, etc.) and otherwise to verify that everything is "OK".
There's much more, and I've simplified things, but generally the attitude indicator is what you spend most of your time looking at (but not staring at) while you scan to the left, then back to the centre, then right, then centre, then down, then centre, every once in a while down and left or down and right, or over to the VOR or NDB or GPS.
As stated above, the best thing to do would be to either have an hour of instruction flying on instruments, or to read a book on instrument flying. This will clarify a lot about how to scan .vs. read instruments, and which ones support which other ones, and which ones are primary or secondary for which type of manouver.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
apparently those who go to a PPL from sims spend all of thier time fixated on the instruments