> >
>

# Flight Deck Cutoff Angle - Forward Visibility

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

# Flight Deck Cutoff Angle - Forward Visibility

18th Mar 2023, 10:26

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: L'Alpe D'Huez
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Flight Deck Cutoff Angle - Forward Visibility

Hello all.

Looking for some generic numbers to describe the loss in forward visibility if a pilot seated X cm too low in cockpit when approaching minima on ILS.

ie.. if a pilot is seated 5cm too low, what reduction in forward visibility would they experience? (Ie from 800m for CAT I at 300 feet).
18th Mar 2023, 11:22

Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,289
Received 167 Likes on 85 Posts
The FCOM/FCTM has the diagrams for the normal approach scenario. Just do the trigonometry for yourself.
18th Mar 2023, 17:03

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,224
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts
Capt Fathom's suggestion is good for a specific aircraft type (assuming one has the documents).

For a GENERIC ESTIMATION, this GENERIC document on the problem provides some dimensionless diagrams that may help figure a GENERIC geometry. Just choose and apply reasonable dimensions to the diagrams (eye distance from panel or other obstruction horizontally; pitch angle of aircraft on 3° glideslope (usually about 2-3° nose-up); actual height and slope of glareshield; and so on.

Of note, many modern aircraft (as you likely know) have eye reference indicators above the glareshield, to ensure correct seating (height above and distance from, the cockpit panel) for a correct eye position. And recent aircraft, originally designed in the glass-cockpit era, now have less-tall instrument panels to give pilots better downward vision (no doubt accounted for in the eye reference indicator's construction).

Also of note, it mentions just how a pilot could end up 5cm low even if their eye position was correct at the beginning of the flight - slouching from muscle fatigue after a long flight.

https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/...shelf/4247.pdf

Last edited by pattern_is_full; 18th Mar 2023 at 17:15.
18th Mar 2023, 19:42

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,834
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Interesting link but it seems a bit Airbus specific. I find Boeings tend to put you so far forward if you line up the little balls, or the rudder adjuster and the yoke markings, it becomes difficult to use the yoke fully and it feels rather uncomfortable. YMMV.
18th Mar 2023, 20:21

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,781
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Cat 1 is typically 550m at 200ft so why are you asking about 800m?
18th Mar 2023, 20:54

Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You could do the math on this (and I'm almost bored enough to do it just for fun) but the visibility lost from seating position is off the near end, while atmospheric conditions (the "visibility" on an approach around minimums, etc) is at the far end. So I don't see the related applicability. If you can't see the runway because of the fog, sitting higher won't help.
18th Mar 2023, 21:20

Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brighton
Posts: 966
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
But the near end of the visual field includes the nearest approach lights - highly relevant at DH
18th Mar 2023, 21:37

Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 2,951
Received 856 Likes on 256 Posts
Originally Posted by m-dot
Hello all.

Looking for some generic numbers to describe the loss in forward visibility if a pilot seated X cm too low in cockpit when approaching minima on ILS.

ie.. if a pilot is seated 5cm too low, what reduction in forward visibility would they experience? (Ie from 800m for CAT I at 300 feet).
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom
The FCOM/FCTM has the diagrams for the normal approach scenario. Just do the trigonometry for yourself.
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full
Capt Fathom's suggestion is good for a specific aircraft type (assuming one has the documents).

For a GENERIC ESTIMATION, this GENERIC document on the problem provides some dimensionless diagrams that may help figure a GENERIC geometry. Just choose and apply reasonable dimensions to the diagrams (eye distance from panel or other obstruction horizontally; pitch angle of aircraft on 3° glideslope (usually about 2-3° nose-up); actual height and slope of glareshield; and so on.

Of note, many modern aircraft (as you likely know) have eye reference indicators above the glareshield, to ensure correct seating (height above and distance from, the cockpit panel) for a correct eye position. And recent aircraft, originally designed in the glass-cockpit era, now have less-tall instrument panels to give pilots better downward vision (no doubt accounted for in the eye reference indicator's construction).

Also of note, it mentions just how a pilot could end up 5cm low even if their eye position was correct at the beginning of the flight - slouching from muscle fatigue after a long flight.

https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/...shelf/4247.pdf

For off nominal seating, go measure your eye to coaming distance and apply a 1:60 for the quick solution, using the basic data from the FCOM, or do the trig. The eye height directly affects the visual cutoff but also the segment of observed surface, and that has issues with perception of rates. pitch attitude (speed/configuration/wind component) alter the cutoff as well. approximately each 5 kts changes the attitude by 1 degree... Every transport has a reference eye height, it is a design requirement and found in the AC 25-773-1 4(b) to meet the requirements of the Part. §25.773(d)

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off