To all Pilots (Display question)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reference
To post 19, John Farley.
The word "liking" may not have been mentioned literally, but in post 3, to which post 11 refers, I read
"I also find it very easy to fly in this way."
in post 11
"Worked for me like a charm"
in post 12 (same author as post 3)
""Ditto. When using the Russian style AH as a 'big picture' instrument, it makes far more sense."
Seems to me like a case of "they like it" .
Of course I do not deny their right to like something, but I tried to make clear why the "western style" attitude indication is more natural: the artificial horizon stays parallel to the real horizon and the wing symbols stay parallel to the real wings. In the "Russian" system, looking at an airplane symbol from "behind" the airplane, the artificial horizon stays parallel to the real wings and the artificial wings bank relative to the real wings.
If you are sitting stationary behind a PC and operate the aircraft as a model airplane, the Russian sytem is fine. But as I wrote in my previous post, if you have an outside view from your real world aircraft, in a bank there is a contradiction between the real horizon and the (Russian) artificial horizon.
I do not fight your argument that 40 or 50 years ago technology was not able to provide enough freedom of movement for gyro systems to be free of maneuvre limits. I do not think though that for commercial aviation, those were "limits" as you are expected to remain fairly close to horizontal for safety and passenger comfort.
The word "liking" may not have been mentioned literally, but in post 3, to which post 11 refers, I read
"I also find it very easy to fly in this way."
in post 11
"Worked for me like a charm"
in post 12 (same author as post 3)
""Ditto. When using the Russian style AH as a 'big picture' instrument, it makes far more sense."
Seems to me like a case of "they like it" .
Of course I do not deny their right to like something, but I tried to make clear why the "western style" attitude indication is more natural: the artificial horizon stays parallel to the real horizon and the wing symbols stay parallel to the real wings. In the "Russian" system, looking at an airplane symbol from "behind" the airplane, the artificial horizon stays parallel to the real wings and the artificial wings bank relative to the real wings.
If you are sitting stationary behind a PC and operate the aircraft as a model airplane, the Russian sytem is fine. But as I wrote in my previous post, if you have an outside view from your real world aircraft, in a bank there is a contradiction between the real horizon and the (Russian) artificial horizon.
I do not fight your argument that 40 or 50 years ago technology was not able to provide enough freedom of movement for gyro systems to be free of maneuvre limits. I do not think though that for commercial aviation, those were "limits" as you are expected to remain fairly close to horizontal for safety and passenger comfort.
I gave the wrong impression. I don't like the Russian AHs, but when I have flown with them, considering the symbology as an outside view of the aircraft seems to make sense more than trying to interpret them as you would the western instrument. I grew up with the western instrument and yes it does make more sense to me.
But it's all about what you trained with. I recall an accident report of an Egyptian 737 which flew into the Red Sea a few years ago. The report considered the Commander's previous experience with the Russian instrument as a factor as they thought he may have reverted to type when things went wrong.
I trained with the Mk1 horizon which would take at least 15 minutes to re-erect when toppled. A RDF letdown on the turn and slip was part of the IRT those days. Tell that to the kids of today, they just don't believe you!
And speaking of kids, mine don't want to be pilots. They just want to get a high score on their 'Ace Combat' game on the PS2. I won't dissapoint them!
But it's all about what you trained with. I recall an accident report of an Egyptian 737 which flew into the Red Sea a few years ago. The report considered the Commander's previous experience with the Russian instrument as a factor as they thought he may have reverted to type when things went wrong.
I trained with the Mk1 horizon which would take at least 15 minutes to re-erect when toppled. A RDF letdown on the turn and slip was part of the IRT those days. Tell that to the kids of today, they just don't believe you!
And speaking of kids, mine don't want to be pilots. They just want to get a high score on their 'Ace Combat' game on the PS2. I won't dissapoint them!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply
OK Dan, good post.
Interesting reference to the Sharm el Sheikh crash. Would you have a web reference to that report (question mark - I can't find it on the keyboard, sitting in a Spanish speaking country and their keyboard layout is different from plain U.S English, what I have always trained with ....)
Best regards.
Interesting reference to the Sharm el Sheikh crash. Would you have a web reference to that report (question mark - I can't find it on the keyboard, sitting in a Spanish speaking country and their keyboard layout is different from plain U.S English, what I have always trained with ....)
Best regards.
short flights long nights
Ok..I have to ask...never having used one, how is a Russian AH diffrent to a Western one?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On "our" AH's the aircraft symbol (usually a wing-symbol on modern EADIs and PFDs) is stationary and the horizon behind it moves. So during a left turn the horizon will turn right...
The Russians have it the other way around; the horizon is stationary and its the aircraft symbol that is moved. As if you were viewing the aircraft from behind.
I don't know why, but I find the Western approach much more intuitive even though people new to flying find it confusing at first. But whenever I see a picture of an AH in a non-level attitude I always know instantly which way I would move a yoke to level the aircraft - as if it were a reflex.
The Russians have it the other way around; the horizon is stationary and its the aircraft symbol that is moved. As if you were viewing the aircraft from behind.
I don't know why, but I find the Western approach much more intuitive even though people new to flying find it confusing at first. But whenever I see a picture of an AH in a non-level attitude I always know instantly which way I would move a yoke to level the aircraft - as if it were a reflex.
short flights long nights
ok..I think I see the difference..does it make a difference if "ours" are sky pointers or not (hating to appear stupid)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CDI Reversed
If you could do it all over again the CDI (Course Deviation Indicator) would
represent the airplane and not the RWY center line.
It´s more natural if the needle moves in the same direction as the airplane
(similar to fly a LLZ Back course).
I guess by now our pilot heads are already twisted.
/Cheers
represent the airplane and not the RWY center line.
It´s more natural if the needle moves in the same direction as the airplane
(similar to fly a LLZ Back course).
I guess by now our pilot heads are already twisted.
/Cheers
Some of us (older pilots!) may remember using the Smith's Flight System, or it's military counterpart -the MFS or Military Flight System. It had a Pitch/Bank pointer instead of an Attitude Indicator. The horizon rotated on a fixed gimbal anf the pich pointer moved up and down a scale which had 18 degrees of up movemet and 9 of down. The compass element was known as a Bearing/Distance/Heading Indicator and the compass card coule be allowed to rotate as normal, or if flying an approach the runway QDM was set at the top and the aircraft heading bug moved round the dial.
If it sounds confusing, it's because it was! No doubt it was the bees knees of instrument design in the late 50s, but it had serious limitations. One being that in the Victor Mk2 where I flew with the thing, the aircraft could easily achieve pitch angles of more than 18 degrees and after that we had to use the ASI to monitor the pitch angle.
I'm not advocating it as a replacement system. It was rubbish! I just though I'd add it into the different systems discussion.
If it sounds confusing, it's because it was! No doubt it was the bees knees of instrument design in the late 50s, but it had serious limitations. One being that in the Victor Mk2 where I flew with the thing, the aircraft could easily achieve pitch angles of more than 18 degrees and after that we had to use the ASI to monitor the pitch angle.
I'm not advocating it as a replacement system. It was rubbish! I just though I'd add it into the different systems discussion.
Dan
God, I thought the MM3 AH on the North American F-100 was prehistoric, it didn't even tumble. And the OCU instructors, cruel as they were, wouldn't have considered a needle, ball and airspeed letdown. I shiver to think of it. Iron men and wooden planes, the RAF.
Back to the post, check out the Gulfstream website for the new Synthetic Vision Displays, they are the future of integrating the outside view. At least, the bizjet fleet will rapidly moving in that direction over the next 5-10 years.
GF
God, I thought the MM3 AH on the North American F-100 was prehistoric, it didn't even tumble. And the OCU instructors, cruel as they were, wouldn't have considered a needle, ball and airspeed letdown. I shiver to think of it. Iron men and wooden planes, the RAF.
Back to the post, check out the Gulfstream website for the new Synthetic Vision Displays, they are the future of integrating the outside view. At least, the bizjet fleet will rapidly moving in that direction over the next 5-10 years.
GF
Guest
Posts: n/a
Future
Am reading some excellent input. Further out, don't be surprised if ATPL's will be wearing headgear with a HUD that stays oriented perfectly and consistently with various combinations of "Bundled" displays in the same position regardless of the direction of the Pilot's gaze. There is no reason to think this format would require much training, and notwithstanding the predictable uproar from Pelicans (guilty) it is a natural, allowing the best of panel scan and outside reference. I've been fortunate to try it, it's an outstanding system.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: OX18
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hus1uk1, Have you looked at smartcockpit.com ?
The difference between displays is massive. A "simple" speed tape can have twenty or more different bugs displayed on it. Have a look at the Dassault Falcon 2000DX/EX EASy PFD, the "Extras" are amazing!
The difference between displays is massive. A "simple" speed tape can have twenty or more different bugs displayed on it. Have a look at the Dassault Falcon 2000DX/EX EASy PFD, the "Extras" are amazing!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 8846
Slightly off topic but our instructors came up with the idea of 'rumours' and 'news', that is to say that whatever button is pressed on the flight mode panel (FMP) it must be confirmed by observation of the ACTUAL mode on the FMA.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Age: 48
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was wondering about the current trend of extending the AI across the entire display ala the G1000. The few times I've flown a system like this, I hated it. It doesn't really provide any info than the already relatively large AI section of most older PFDs and reduces the contrast of the A/S and alt tapes and associated symbology making them much harder to read. Am I alone in this?
I don't fly for a living, so I'm curious of the opinion of those who do.
I don't fly for a living, so I'm curious of the opinion of those who do.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
richatom writes
Not sure I understand this - as implemented on the 172 G1000 and others the wind vector is on the PFD, immediately to the upper left of the HSI. Ground track is indicated ON the HSI by a little magenta delta.
By the way, Garmin has now announced a Synthetic Vision and Highway in the Sky upgrade to the G1000. Neat demo video here:
http://www.aopa.org/pilot/firstlook/...garminsvs.html
Garmin's web info here:
http://www8.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/040708.html
I agree the Garmin G1000 is a good layout. I wish thought that they had included wind vector and ground track on the HSI. Currently wind vector is on the MFD and ground track is displayed digitally top right of PFD so your scan is scattered.
By the way, Garmin has now announced a Synthetic Vision and Highway in the Sky upgrade to the G1000. Neat demo video here:
http://www.aopa.org/pilot/firstlook/...garminsvs.html
Garmin's web info here:
http://www8.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/040708.html
