Flight Deck Design in Long Range Airliners
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Deck Design in Long Range Airliners
Can anyone help???
I am an engineer who has been in the industry for 10 years, and am currently studying an Aerospace Engineering degree.
For my final year dissertation, I have chosen:
'The effect of flight deck design on crew fatigue'
This is solely based on design ergonomics of long range aircraft such as 767, 777, 747 (Classic and -400), A330, A340 (3/5/600) and concentrates on factors including flight deck noise, vibration, systems and instrument panel layouts, seats, crew rest areas - and even obscure factors such as colours of trim etc.
Could any pilots with any comments about the design of their working environment and how it affects boredom/fatigue please pass on any comments as you are the ones who spend your working lives in there and know best about the effect that it has on you.
Cheers.
I am an engineer who has been in the industry for 10 years, and am currently studying an Aerospace Engineering degree.
For my final year dissertation, I have chosen:
'The effect of flight deck design on crew fatigue'
This is solely based on design ergonomics of long range aircraft such as 767, 777, 747 (Classic and -400), A330, A340 (3/5/600) and concentrates on factors including flight deck noise, vibration, systems and instrument panel layouts, seats, crew rest areas - and even obscure factors such as colours of trim etc.
Could any pilots with any comments about the design of their working environment and how it affects boredom/fatigue please pass on any comments as you are the ones who spend your working lives in there and know best about the effect that it has on you.
Cheers.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North of London
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew the 767-300ER for about 4 and a half years, and it is excellent for long range flights. The flight deck is roomy, but you can still reach everything and there is storage space for all your gear (and duty free shopping) plus two spacious jump seats. The main seats were extremely comfortable but not sleep-inducing because you were able to stretch your legs without hitting the rudder pedals. The longest flight I did was about 12 hours and although tired at the end, not exhausted like a days work on the 737 with it's cramped flight deck, high noise and short sectors.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My main gripe with the 747-400F is noise.
Some of it is airflow noise from outside, but a LOT of it is internal air noise from A/C and pressurization outlets and plumbing drains (e.g., in the galley and lav). If the engineers could work on quieting the internal noise, we'd all be a lot happier!
Some of it is airflow noise from outside, but a LOT of it is internal air noise from A/C and pressurization outlets and plumbing drains (e.g., in the galley and lav). If the engineers could work on quieting the internal noise, we'd all be a lot happier!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walkerjoe,
I've flown the L-1011, B747-400, -400F, 757ER, 767-200/300ER, and the 777 (currently). Go ahead and e-mail me with specific questions if you like, and I'll endevour to get them answered, or I'll have a think during my next trip and post here. My longest flight is 15.45 hours in a -400, LAX-HKG.
Personal body-clock time is the single biggest factor controlling fatigue, IMHO, but it's interesting to see how the designers tried to mitigate its effects.
Cheers
I've flown the L-1011, B747-400, -400F, 757ER, 767-200/300ER, and the 777 (currently). Go ahead and e-mail me with specific questions if you like, and I'll endevour to get them answered, or I'll have a think during my next trip and post here. My longest flight is 15.45 hours in a -400, LAX-HKG.
Personal body-clock time is the single biggest factor controlling fatigue, IMHO, but it's interesting to see how the designers tried to mitigate its effects.
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the DVT awareness age! What about provision for exercise equipment for the relief or on rest crew- exercise bike, nordic trainer. If we're starting to talk really long range, it is the only way to prevent a lot of court action later. A major factor in Boeing discomfort is having the control between your legs, with inability to cross legs (not in itself a good thing, but comfort is important). IF you are having exercise equipment, is a small minimal flow fibre glass shower cubicle totally out of the question?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest that you make any ideas for improving pilot's comfort impossible to change by companies that buy the aircraft.
Two tricks are to change or modify the seats to save money and to take up the flight deck carpet. The latter saves little, but certainly increases the noise level.
Two tricks are to change or modify the seats to save money and to take up the flight deck carpet. The latter saves little, but certainly increases the noise level.
I have a fair bit of time on 747 Classic's and most of the passenger versions are a little noisy, but the freighters are way too noisy.
I'm also nearly two metres tall and find that I'm cramped for space in the cruise.
The main problem with the entire plane is that it carries more than four hours of fuel! If they got rid of the centre tank and made the inboard tanks the same size as the outboards it's have just the right range to be very comfortable.
I'm also nearly two metres tall and find that I'm cramped for space in the cruise.
The main problem with the entire plane is that it carries more than four hours of fuel! If they got rid of the centre tank and made the inboard tanks the same size as the outboards it's have just the right range to be very comfortable.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LEAX, Spain
Age: 62
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep on Trucking
Walkerjoe
This is a mucho interesting subject, not because I fly long-haul - I'm a humble chopper pilot - but because I've done many years in and around the trucking business, including time spent as an engineer.
Fact is, there are MANY common fatigue and design-related factors and concerns between the trucking and airline industries, so much so that manufacturers with a foot in both camps, eg: Saab-Scania, have worked to transfer ergonomic lessons learned in the cockpit to the cabs of those 'juggernauts' , and vice-versa. Other truck makers such as Peterbilt and Kenworth have even approached Boeing (they're both in Seattle) to buy-in ergonomic know-how, reciprocating with results from fatigue and boredom tests conducted on US truck drivers. Then there are the 'outside' factors such as alcohol, drug use, night working, variable shifts, time away from family, rostering, diet and night stops (nudge nudge, wink wink). Plus there's direct stuff like seating and DVT.
(...all scary thoughts, eh, 18-Wheeler? )
Anyway, the purpose of this post is to suggest you include at least a chapter on trucks and trucking in your dissertation. I'm happy to contribute,,, but you're buying the beer. Send me a PM and I'll sort you out.
The longest 'run' I ever drove was 54hours (including two stops totally just seven hours sleep) from Oslo to Kirkenes on the north Cape of Norway in winter. But you really need to talk to the 'airfreight' guys who run Chicago to LA nonstop in 72hours beating the airlines at their own game, and the Australians who run coast-to-coast using strict, self-imposed (yes, self-imposed) 'no alcohol' rules. Then there's Jo-burg to Cape Town in 13hours non-stop. Why? because of the hijack threat.
Like I said, many overlaps.
I'd be interested to know if any of you airline pilots have had fatique-induced hallucinations, and if so, what did you see?
Dantruck
This is a mucho interesting subject, not because I fly long-haul - I'm a humble chopper pilot - but because I've done many years in and around the trucking business, including time spent as an engineer.
Fact is, there are MANY common fatigue and design-related factors and concerns between the trucking and airline industries, so much so that manufacturers with a foot in both camps, eg: Saab-Scania, have worked to transfer ergonomic lessons learned in the cockpit to the cabs of those 'juggernauts' , and vice-versa. Other truck makers such as Peterbilt and Kenworth have even approached Boeing (they're both in Seattle) to buy-in ergonomic know-how, reciprocating with results from fatigue and boredom tests conducted on US truck drivers. Then there are the 'outside' factors such as alcohol, drug use, night working, variable shifts, time away from family, rostering, diet and night stops (nudge nudge, wink wink). Plus there's direct stuff like seating and DVT.
(...all scary thoughts, eh, 18-Wheeler? )
Anyway, the purpose of this post is to suggest you include at least a chapter on trucks and trucking in your dissertation. I'm happy to contribute,,, but you're buying the beer. Send me a PM and I'll sort you out.
The longest 'run' I ever drove was 54hours (including two stops totally just seven hours sleep) from Oslo to Kirkenes on the north Cape of Norway in winter. But you really need to talk to the 'airfreight' guys who run Chicago to LA nonstop in 72hours beating the airlines at their own game, and the Australians who run coast-to-coast using strict, self-imposed (yes, self-imposed) 'no alcohol' rules. Then there's Jo-burg to Cape Town in 13hours non-stop. Why? because of the hijack threat.
Like I said, many overlaps.
I'd be interested to know if any of you airline pilots have had fatique-induced hallucinations, and if so, what did you see?
Dantruck
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comfort....comfort you say?
In a word, Lockheed TriStar, even the -500 model in which I have done 12+hour flights...most would agree, superb.
And, the view is great...and with a F/E....how can you go wrong?
And, the view is great...and with a F/E....how can you go wrong?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: KLAX
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have recently done a pacific jump in the new -400ER and boeing seems to have done very well, reducing the cockpit noise substantially compared to the bog-standard 744. About bloody time!
The LCDs are also more pleasing (i.e. less fatigue-ing) to the eye than the CRTs.
The LCDs are also more pleasing (i.e. less fatigue-ing) to the eye than the CRTs.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: FL410 (if she's light enough)
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Walkerjoe, I fly the A340 and I must say that compared to other long haul a/c it is very comfortable for us. The flight deck is quiet and the seat is well designed. The fact that we have no control column in front of us is great as you can cross your legs while having the seat reclined. I find that one of the major problems I have on long eastbound flights is that the design of the sun shades is not that good. Imagine having done 7 hours night flight and then at day break you have another 5 hours with the sun in your face. I would like to see some better designed sun shade ( perhaps retractabe as we have on the side windows) which covers the whole front window. In many instances we are forced to use newspaper to cover parts of the window.
Cheers
Snails
Cheers
Snails
Newspaper!...
The usual culprits I suspect are Noise, vibration, harshness and lighting. In the 340 this seems to be reasonably well addressed, with some more thought on designing a seat that is durable as well as comfortable. [how long does the lumber support remain "adjustable"?] Also 340 specific is the horrible selcal/cabin "chime". This always wakes me from the bunk! A better designed cockpit/bunk arrangement could reduce fatigue by allowing adequate inflight rest. This includes the cockpit door [post 11/9 mutha] closing arrangement, galley and toilet.
-sorry moved a bit from the flight deck there.
The usual culprits I suspect are Noise, vibration, harshness and lighting. In the 340 this seems to be reasonably well addressed, with some more thought on designing a seat that is durable as well as comfortable. [how long does the lumber support remain "adjustable"?] Also 340 specific is the horrible selcal/cabin "chime". This always wakes me from the bunk! A better designed cockpit/bunk arrangement could reduce fatigue by allowing adequate inflight rest. This includes the cockpit door [post 11/9 mutha] closing arrangement, galley and toilet.
-sorry moved a bit from the flight deck there.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 78
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twinning the Attitude References
On a flight instrument layout safety aspect:
As may be obvious from the soon-to-be-released Stansted KAL 747 accident report and the Afghan-bound B-1B (ex Diego Garcia) accident report (and many others, including SR-111 - releasing 27 Mar):
It is important that Primary and Secondary attitude instruments (Analogue, EFIS, FD, CRT, PFD or otherwise) should be in close juxtaposition (i.e. close alongside each other). It is far too late, once a power source or instrument has failed, to start trying to sort out which is telling the truth (if any). Normally one WILL BE, or maybe you'll have an aural alert or Off Flag or one might just freeze - but if you are into a dynamic unusual attitude BEFORE you start trying to sort out the bogus and balderdash from the bonafide, you have VERY LITTLE CHANCE of making a correct choice and recovering without pulling the wings off.
It can all happen very fast (particularly when distracted) - and that's why a "twinning" of the primary and backup attitude references gives you the best chance for an early heads-up that something is awry. There are many examples around of poor lay-out for the standby AI and the MD-11 is one that springs to mind (centrally low-down and forward of the centre pedestal, hidden behind throttles). When the primary and backup are closely twinned you don't need the peripheral vision that most of us haven't got - in order to quickly pick up a failure.
The B-1B Accident
Cascading failures. With unreliable instruments and no horizon cues in the night sky, the crew ejected, according to an account of the December 2001 crash of a B-1 bomber appearing in the latest issue of Flying Safety. The U.S. Air Force Safety Center publishes the magazine. The article by Maj. Dan Baker recounts a progression of system losses that may bear on commercial aircraft engaged in extended-range operations (ETOPS):
"Shortly after [a nighttime] takeoff from Diego Garcia ... the aircrew experienced multiple systems failures which resulted in the loss of aircraft control and the aircrew ejecting from the aircraft. According to the Accident Investigation Board ... the crew shut down the number one engine due to an oil over-temperature. The associated primary generator fell off-line normally during the engine shutdown. The crew decided to abort the mission and return to Diego Garcia.
"En route, the number two primary generator dropped off line, accompanied by loss of the ... aircraft's computer navigation complex. The pilot switched on the emergency generator, in accordance with the ... emergency procedure for single generator operation. Shortly thereafter, the pilots determined [that] their primary and standby aircraft attitude [i.e., level flight, turning, climbing, etc.] information was unreliable.
"Though the weather at the cruise altitude of FL 200 was clear, there was no lunar illumination and neither pilot could discern the horizon. The OSO [offensive systems operator] and DSO [defensive systems operator] noted increasing uncommanded bank angle displays up to 120º accompanied by rapidly decreasing altitude and increasing airspeed, and advised the pilots. Passing 15,000 feet MSL, the OSO determined the aircraft was out of control and, in accordance with TechOrder guidance, ejected, followed quickly by the DSO ... Convinced the aircraft was out of control and unrecoverable, the pilots ejected. The aircraft was destroyed upon impact with the water and sank. A U.S. Navy vessel in the area rescued all four crewmembers. After lengthy salvage operations, the aircraft was never located, and no parts of the aircraft were recovered."
Wouldn't be surprised if they'd had a bus or wire-bundle fire (which were my thoughts at the time). The cascading nature of the emergency as systems dropped out, culminating in an apparent loss of ALL attitude instruments, obviously left the crew with little choice but to eject. It seems very likely that SR-111 might have progressed along the same lines into its terminal spiral.
The original oil overtemp may have been bogus and just an early manifestation of their burgeoning electrical problems. But how is one to know? Not all electrical problems are going to manifest themselves in smell, smoke or flames, particularly as the problem may easily have been outside the pressure vessel in the case of this B-1. The crew were probably all wearing oxygen masks anyway - and they inhibit the smell of smoke somewhat. As the problems were all initially on the port side of the airplane, I'd guess that the electrical fire was in that left wing. I would imagine that the primary and standby attitude sources were giving conflicting information and that the standby AH was likely correct - however there is only ever a very finite period in which to establish that. Once you have the two main instruments tumbling or toppling they will be obviously "disagreeing" with the standby. However the standby AH will also be (by now) dynamic with a rapidly changing presentation - simply because the aircraft attitude may now itself be changing rapidly). An inevitable pilot confusion about whether any displayed attitude is valid (and the instrument usable) will be soon overcome by the urgency of ejecting before it's too late. That sense of urgency would be heightened somewhat by the OSO's precipitate departure. And he was probably within his rights, as 15,000ft out of control descending has always been the "every man for himself" cut-off point.
It really gets back to the need for "twinning" the primary and standby attitude systems. Early/immediate awareness of a primary or secondary instrument failure will more often than not preclude an unusual attitude developing at all. Looking at the cost of a B-1, I'd say that would be a cheap solution to "early outs" by confused pilots who've allowed the airplane to depart straight and level [and then become confused by the dynamism of unwinding altimeters, spinning HSI's, VSI's locked on the down stop, increasing g and airspeed, audio alarms, urgent intercom calls and a high ambient air-rush noise]. Once it gets to that stage, it doesn't really matter that there's a bright panoply of stars in the night's canopy - everything from there on in is a disoriented blur and avenues of escape are then in the forefront of one's mind. Recovery as a solution becomes quickly discarded when you are sitting on a bang-seat..... and someone has just audibly pointed the way.
You could say that it's an outstanding example of why electrical redundancy matters. No electrical system (or its dependent systems and avionics) can survive once it's been interdicted by a fire or combat damage. What's required is the alternate, stand-alone and switchable integrity of a Virgin Bus. It's incongruous that a military aircraft that needed that level of redundancy (in both war and peace) was lost, happily without loss of life, whilst an airliner with 300 or 400 people would have been a total loss in similar circumstances. In this techno day and age, survivability shouldn't depend upon whether or not there's a bomber's moon in the night sky.
As may be obvious from the soon-to-be-released Stansted KAL 747 accident report and the Afghan-bound B-1B (ex Diego Garcia) accident report (and many others, including SR-111 - releasing 27 Mar):
It is important that Primary and Secondary attitude instruments (Analogue, EFIS, FD, CRT, PFD or otherwise) should be in close juxtaposition (i.e. close alongside each other). It is far too late, once a power source or instrument has failed, to start trying to sort out which is telling the truth (if any). Normally one WILL BE, or maybe you'll have an aural alert or Off Flag or one might just freeze - but if you are into a dynamic unusual attitude BEFORE you start trying to sort out the bogus and balderdash from the bonafide, you have VERY LITTLE CHANCE of making a correct choice and recovering without pulling the wings off.
It can all happen very fast (particularly when distracted) - and that's why a "twinning" of the primary and backup attitude references gives you the best chance for an early heads-up that something is awry. There are many examples around of poor lay-out for the standby AI and the MD-11 is one that springs to mind (centrally low-down and forward of the centre pedestal, hidden behind throttles). When the primary and backup are closely twinned you don't need the peripheral vision that most of us haven't got - in order to quickly pick up a failure.
The B-1B Accident
Cascading failures. With unreliable instruments and no horizon cues in the night sky, the crew ejected, according to an account of the December 2001 crash of a B-1 bomber appearing in the latest issue of Flying Safety. The U.S. Air Force Safety Center publishes the magazine. The article by Maj. Dan Baker recounts a progression of system losses that may bear on commercial aircraft engaged in extended-range operations (ETOPS):
"Shortly after [a nighttime] takeoff from Diego Garcia ... the aircrew experienced multiple systems failures which resulted in the loss of aircraft control and the aircrew ejecting from the aircraft. According to the Accident Investigation Board ... the crew shut down the number one engine due to an oil over-temperature. The associated primary generator fell off-line normally during the engine shutdown. The crew decided to abort the mission and return to Diego Garcia.
"En route, the number two primary generator dropped off line, accompanied by loss of the ... aircraft's computer navigation complex. The pilot switched on the emergency generator, in accordance with the ... emergency procedure for single generator operation. Shortly thereafter, the pilots determined [that] their primary and standby aircraft attitude [i.e., level flight, turning, climbing, etc.] information was unreliable.
"Though the weather at the cruise altitude of FL 200 was clear, there was no lunar illumination and neither pilot could discern the horizon. The OSO [offensive systems operator] and DSO [defensive systems operator] noted increasing uncommanded bank angle displays up to 120º accompanied by rapidly decreasing altitude and increasing airspeed, and advised the pilots. Passing 15,000 feet MSL, the OSO determined the aircraft was out of control and, in accordance with TechOrder guidance, ejected, followed quickly by the DSO ... Convinced the aircraft was out of control and unrecoverable, the pilots ejected. The aircraft was destroyed upon impact with the water and sank. A U.S. Navy vessel in the area rescued all four crewmembers. After lengthy salvage operations, the aircraft was never located, and no parts of the aircraft were recovered."
Wouldn't be surprised if they'd had a bus or wire-bundle fire (which were my thoughts at the time). The cascading nature of the emergency as systems dropped out, culminating in an apparent loss of ALL attitude instruments, obviously left the crew with little choice but to eject. It seems very likely that SR-111 might have progressed along the same lines into its terminal spiral.
The original oil overtemp may have been bogus and just an early manifestation of their burgeoning electrical problems. But how is one to know? Not all electrical problems are going to manifest themselves in smell, smoke or flames, particularly as the problem may easily have been outside the pressure vessel in the case of this B-1. The crew were probably all wearing oxygen masks anyway - and they inhibit the smell of smoke somewhat. As the problems were all initially on the port side of the airplane, I'd guess that the electrical fire was in that left wing. I would imagine that the primary and standby attitude sources were giving conflicting information and that the standby AH was likely correct - however there is only ever a very finite period in which to establish that. Once you have the two main instruments tumbling or toppling they will be obviously "disagreeing" with the standby. However the standby AH will also be (by now) dynamic with a rapidly changing presentation - simply because the aircraft attitude may now itself be changing rapidly). An inevitable pilot confusion about whether any displayed attitude is valid (and the instrument usable) will be soon overcome by the urgency of ejecting before it's too late. That sense of urgency would be heightened somewhat by the OSO's precipitate departure. And he was probably within his rights, as 15,000ft out of control descending has always been the "every man for himself" cut-off point.
It really gets back to the need for "twinning" the primary and standby attitude systems. Early/immediate awareness of a primary or secondary instrument failure will more often than not preclude an unusual attitude developing at all. Looking at the cost of a B-1, I'd say that would be a cheap solution to "early outs" by confused pilots who've allowed the airplane to depart straight and level [and then become confused by the dynamism of unwinding altimeters, spinning HSI's, VSI's locked on the down stop, increasing g and airspeed, audio alarms, urgent intercom calls and a high ambient air-rush noise]. Once it gets to that stage, it doesn't really matter that there's a bright panoply of stars in the night's canopy - everything from there on in is a disoriented blur and avenues of escape are then in the forefront of one's mind. Recovery as a solution becomes quickly discarded when you are sitting on a bang-seat..... and someone has just audibly pointed the way.
You could say that it's an outstanding example of why electrical redundancy matters. No electrical system (or its dependent systems and avionics) can survive once it's been interdicted by a fire or combat damage. What's required is the alternate, stand-alone and switchable integrity of a Virgin Bus. It's incongruous that a military aircraft that needed that level of redundancy (in both war and peace) was lost, happily without loss of life, whilst an airliner with 300 or 400 people would have been a total loss in similar circumstances. In this techno day and age, survivability shouldn't depend upon whether or not there's a bomber's moon in the night sky.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After some thoughts and discussions wtih the crew on my last...
1. Lighting - and I don't mean those who prefer all the storm lts on so that nothing can be seen out the windows. The dome lights on the Boeings are very effective at night turned up about half-way; they provide area cockpit lighting but leave windshield reflections and blanking to a minimum - several of the storm-lt crowd have been converted. Good chart lighting is imperative for tired old eyes, also.
2. Noise. Agree that the 747 was bloody noisy; in addition, resting in the bunk with four Rollers out-of-sync rattled the trim...the newer Boeings have very smooth airflow around the front end, and are amazingly quiet. Pack rumble on the L-1011 was an issue, I remember - 411a weren't those under the flightdeck? The rumble was the louvres not quite positioned correctly....(it's been a long time!).
3. Dryness. Not much you can do here....soak a few towels and leave them out.....I used to fly with some Canadians who flew the Argus, which was capable of 20+ hours aloft un-refuelled. They used to wear wet towels on their heads to combat fatigue - swore it worked...hmmmm. Humidifiers reduce eye fatigue massively.
4. Displays. The new LCD displays on the 777 are much less tiring to look at in low-light conditions that the old flicker-specials.
5. Comm fit. There is no doubt that FANS etc brought about a sea-change in radio usage. No longer any need to listen to a racket over Asia if you can't get a selcal HF if you manage a Logon. Used to happen a great deal; you'd end-up with the speaker on low so as not to miss a call, and the static and gabble was not the freshest thing for the mind...
And then of course there's other stuff such as having an FE to be the entertainment director - I always used to feel that 3 crew were more alert than 2-at-a-time (agree with 411a on this). Legroom etc - agree that the MD-80 is the most god-awful flightdeck for comfort AND ergonomics, and the window seals frequently squealed.
I'm still a big believer that the Cabin Crew should check-in frequently with the Flt Deck, especially as we're locked behind the door now.....
1. Lighting - and I don't mean those who prefer all the storm lts on so that nothing can be seen out the windows. The dome lights on the Boeings are very effective at night turned up about half-way; they provide area cockpit lighting but leave windshield reflections and blanking to a minimum - several of the storm-lt crowd have been converted. Good chart lighting is imperative for tired old eyes, also.
2. Noise. Agree that the 747 was bloody noisy; in addition, resting in the bunk with four Rollers out-of-sync rattled the trim...the newer Boeings have very smooth airflow around the front end, and are amazingly quiet. Pack rumble on the L-1011 was an issue, I remember - 411a weren't those under the flightdeck? The rumble was the louvres not quite positioned correctly....(it's been a long time!).
3. Dryness. Not much you can do here....soak a few towels and leave them out.....I used to fly with some Canadians who flew the Argus, which was capable of 20+ hours aloft un-refuelled. They used to wear wet towels on their heads to combat fatigue - swore it worked...hmmmm. Humidifiers reduce eye fatigue massively.
4. Displays. The new LCD displays on the 777 are much less tiring to look at in low-light conditions that the old flicker-specials.
5. Comm fit. There is no doubt that FANS etc brought about a sea-change in radio usage. No longer any need to listen to a racket over Asia if you can't get a selcal HF if you manage a Logon. Used to happen a great deal; you'd end-up with the speaker on low so as not to miss a call, and the static and gabble was not the freshest thing for the mind...
And then of course there's other stuff such as having an FE to be the entertainment director - I always used to feel that 3 crew were more alert than 2-at-a-time (agree with 411a on this). Legroom etc - agree that the MD-80 is the most god-awful flightdeck for comfort AND ergonomics, and the window seals frequently squealed.
I'm still a big believer that the Cabin Crew should check-in frequently with the Flt Deck, especially as we're locked behind the door now.....
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spare a thought for us long haul 737 types. Our NG's regularly do 5/6 hour sectors, a 50 minute turn round, and right back home again. Not uncommon to have bum on seat for nearly 12 hours.
I'd love an exercise bike in my 73.....or a steam room...
I'd love an exercise bike in my 73.....or a steam room...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 78
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twinning the Main and Standby Attitude Indicators
19 Mar 2001
http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2003/A03_02_03.pdf
Extract:
"During the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation of this accident,
investigators learned that both of the electronic attitude display indicators (EADI)2 failed during
the upset, resulting in the loss of primary attitude information to the flight crew."
http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2003/A03_02_03.pdf
Extract:
"During the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation of this accident,
investigators learned that both of the electronic attitude display indicators (EADI)2 failed during
the upset, resulting in the loss of primary attitude information to the flight crew."
