Engineering design Vs Pilots perception
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineering design Vs Pilots perception
I would be interesed to know what equipments, display, switches, indications, levers etc etc, would you really like to change in the current aircraft you fly, to make them more intuitive to use.
It doesn't matter how large or small the change but obviously your reasons why you think the current implementation should be improved and the solution you determine best.
Two of my favorites are the following:
- Inside-out Vs the Outside-In ADI. Some in depth testing has shown that the "Russian standard" Outside-In view ADi is actually more intuitive to use for recovering from unusual attitudes than the traditional Inside-Out view ADI of the west.
- The story regarding the wing sweep lever for the F-111, in that it was originally designed with the function of lever forward-wings sweep forward, lever back-wings sweep back, perfect one to one mapping, engineers logical solution. However pilots perception is lever forward=go faster, lever back=go slower, along with the other controls in the cockpit that meant something went faster if you pushed it forward and vice versa. So as the pilot wanted to slow down for landing, the wing sweep lever was moved aft and the wings swept back, which was obviously not very nice. The wing sweep lever was subsequently re-designed to stop any potential confusion for the pilots.
Cheers for any info.
It doesn't matter how large or small the change but obviously your reasons why you think the current implementation should be improved and the solution you determine best.
Two of my favorites are the following:
- Inside-out Vs the Outside-In ADI. Some in depth testing has shown that the "Russian standard" Outside-In view ADi is actually more intuitive to use for recovering from unusual attitudes than the traditional Inside-Out view ADI of the west.
- The story regarding the wing sweep lever for the F-111, in that it was originally designed with the function of lever forward-wings sweep forward, lever back-wings sweep back, perfect one to one mapping, engineers logical solution. However pilots perception is lever forward=go faster, lever back=go slower, along with the other controls in the cockpit that meant something went faster if you pushed it forward and vice versa. So as the pilot wanted to slow down for landing, the wing sweep lever was moved aft and the wings swept back, which was obviously not very nice. The wing sweep lever was subsequently re-designed to stop any potential confusion for the pilots.
Cheers for any info.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids
Age: 49
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a related subject, hung around some Collins engineers for awhile that seemed determined to make every single function in the cockpit touch screen, with many functions touch screen only. Obviously people who had never been in moderate turbulence. We currently have touch screen EFBs, and they work pretty well with the parking brake set.
They also wanted to make the entertainment system circuitbreakers accesible to the passengers on a corporate jet.
Their reasoning was that since the owner paid for it...
They also wanted to make the entertainment system circuitbreakers accesible to the passengers on a corporate jet.
Their reasoning was that since the owner paid for it...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: East and West Mids UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the other big problem with touch screens is of course, the fingerprints.
It never ceases to amaze me in our op how many people feel the need to touch the CDU when there is absolutely no reason to do so. The resultant greasy mess rapidly becomes almost illegible.
It never ceases to amaze me in our op how many people feel the need to touch the CDU when there is absolutely no reason to do so. The resultant greasy mess rapidly becomes almost illegible.
