A2A Development Update 4/8/18

[mtrewet]

I own a 1964 S35 Bonanza. I’d be glad to help out in any way.

[Scott - A2A]

These old gauges, being physical actually have an infinite resolution, like a film photograph. It's common to think that digital is more accurate, but actually, in some ways the opposite is true, at least on the level of the feel of flight. I came to this conclusion when flying Tim Choppe's C-54. The entire cockpit is rumbling and shaking, yet that vacuum based directional gyro was giving outstanding, precise feedback. And you are not getting a 3 digit number to interpret, just a pointer on a round gauge. And since both we and analog gauges are both physical, we mesh perfectly. There is very little mental power spent on interpretation. It's a beautiful thing.

Scott.

[pilottj]

These old gauges, being physical actually have an infinite resolution, like a film photograph. It's common to think that digital is more accurate, but actually, in some ways the opposite is true, at least on the level of the feel of flight. I came to this conclusion when flying Tim Choppe's C-54. The entire cockpit is rumbling and shaking, yet that vacuum based directional gyro was giving outstanding, precise feedback. And you are not getting a 3 digit number to interpret, just a pointer on a round gauge. And since both we and analog gauges are both physical, we mesh perfectly. There is very little mental power spent on interpretation. It's a beautiful thing.

Scott.

Do you notice it is easier to see 'trends' with traditional gauges vs digital readouts? I find it is easier to get a clear mental picture of what the airplane is doing and what it is about to do. A needle on a gauge moves at a particular rate, you only have to glance at it for a second and you can reasonably predict when that needle will reach the desired value.

I've got a Prius and a Miata. The Prius has a digital speed readout. It is fine for the kind of driving one does in a Prius, but the Miata has traditional gauges. Being a sportier car, I think traditional gauges are necessary. For example, cruising along, and there is a curve up ahead. Let the car coast, glance at the speedometer for a second, note the rate at which is slowing down...so you already have an idea of when you'll get to the desired speed for the curve, making it more instinctual. This leads to less needle 'chasing', less braking, better control...etc

Same thing in an airplane. The good old 'clock' altimeter in a VFR descent for example. You don't even need to look at the VSI other than the occasional a quick crosscheck. The rate the 'clock' is spinning will tell you how fast you are descending. All you have to do is periodically glance at it for a second, infer the trend, then eyes back outside, and you'll hit your altitude with pretty accurate precision IMHO.

Cheers
TJ

[Dogsbody55]

These old gauges, being physical actually have an infinite resolution, like a film photograph. It's common to think that digital is more accurate, but actually, in some ways the opposite is true, at least on the level of the feel of flight. ....

Scott.

Some people make similar comments about photography and music. Digital has many advantages, but in look and feel, it's not necessarily better. I have to agree whole heartedly about what you say here, Scott. I also prefer old steam gauges and find all simulated glass panels confusing. You may not have as much information to hand with steam gauges, but such gauges are easier to quickly interpret and sufficiently accurate to be safer for most pilots. If you need more info, just put that alone on a glass panel.


Cheers,
Mike

[DHenriques_]

These old gauges, being physical actually have an infinite resolution, like a film photograph. It's common to think that digital is more accurate, but actually, in some ways the opposite is true, at least on the level of the feel of flight. I came to this conclusion when flying Tim Choppe's C-54. The entire cockpit is rumbling and shaking, yet that vacuum based directional gyro was giving outstanding, precise feedback. And you are not getting a 3 digit number to interpret, just a pointer on a round gauge. And since both we and analog gauges are both physical, we mesh perfectly. There is very little mental power spent on interpretation. It's a beautiful thing.

Scott.

Do you notice it is easier to see 'trends' with traditional gauges vs digital readouts? I find it is easier to get a clear mental picture of what the airplane is doing and what it is about to do. A needle on a gauge moves at a particular rate, you only have to glance at it for a second and you can reasonably predict when that needle will reach the desired value.

I've got a Prius and a Miata. The Prius has a digital speed readout. It is fine for the kind of driving one does in a Prius, but the Miata has traditional gauges. Being a sportier car, I think traditional gauges are necessary. For example, cruising along, and there is a curve up ahead. Let the car coast, glance at the speedometer for a second, note the rate at which is slowing down...so you already have an idea of when you'll get to the desired speed for the curve, making it more instinctual. This leads to less needle 'chasing', less braking, better control...etc

Same thing in an airplane. The good old 'clock' altimeter in a VFR descent for example. You don't even need to look at the VSI other than the occasional a quick crosscheck. The rate the 'clock' is spinning will tell you how fast you are descending. All you have to do is periodically glance at it for a second, infer the trend, then eyes back outside, and you'll hit your altitude with pretty accurate precision IMHO.

Cheers
TJ

The ability to understand instrument "trending" can be critical for instrument pilots when primary instruments fail and going to partial panel becomes necessary. Needle-ball- and airspeed raw data can save a pilot's life but only if it's understood and used properly.
Even in fast jets, especially fuselage loaded jet fighters with an IYMP that favors unusual spin modes from OCF, raw data trending can be the only means of isolating spin mode and direction where for example, in inverted spin, yaw is opposite roll.
Good instructors today teach primary panel along with glass.
Dudley Henriques

[AKar]

Digital avionics don't exclude needle displays, or formats that are well legible at a glance. Presentation of information has not been greatest in all EFISes for all given purposes. I guess engineering will learn their lessons over time. There are display formats nowadays that combine the best of both approaches, or are even customizable.

-Esa

[DHenriques_]

Digital avionics don't exclude needle displays, or formats that are well legible at a glance. Presentation of information has not been greatest in all EFISes for all given purposes. I guess engineering will learn their lessons over time. There are display formats nowadays that combine the best of both approaches, or are even customizable.

-Esa

My point is more directed toward the LACK of training in today's modern training curriculum. We are WAY over dependent today on glass and technology and this unfortunately has resulted in a generation of pilots who are in trouble when the goodies fail and the need to rely on raw data arises.
We need more training in the basic instrument skill sets.
Dudley Henriques

[AKar]

Digital avionics don't exclude needle displays, or formats that are well legible at a glance. Presentation of information has not been greatest in all EFISes for all given purposes. I guess engineering will learn their lessons over time. There are display formats nowadays that combine the best of both approaches, or are even customizable.

-Esa

My point is more directed toward the LACK of training in today's modern training curriculum. We are WAY over dependent today on glass and technology and this unfortunately has resulted in a generation of pilots who are in trouble when the goodies fail and the need to rely on raw data arises.
We need more training in the basic instrument skill sets.
Dudley Henriques

That's certainly true, my post wasn't meant to be a reply to your post but a general statement of opinion.

-Esa

[pilottj]

I've got two panel posters on my wall, one is a C182 w G1000, and the other a DA42 w G1000. Something very noticeable is where Cessna and Diamond put their standby gauges. Cessna puts AS/AI/ALT in a row between the yokes, under the G1000 unit. Diamond puts the AS/AI/ALT + Mag compass, all on the top row, above the G1000 unit. It seems Diamond's arrangement might be a little better for both the VFR flyer, as well as the IFR partial panel. Minimal head/eye movement in a low light cockpit is important.

Dudley, when I was learning to fly, I admittedly had a hard time keeping my eyes outside for a couple of reasons. When I was a child I got to ride in the right seat alot of a friend's Cessna, the instruments were at my 'eye' level, so I got used to reading those. That and some bad habits picked up from early flight simulators led to too much 'eyes inside' However the instructor was able to use instrument sticky covers which helped break that habit. I imagine it is much harder to teach students these days, the importance of "eyes outside", with today's fancy displays. I was playing around with a G1000 trainer, with the synthetic vision, it was practically a flight simulator in of itself lol.

I did hear the new G1000NXI will now provide lateral and vertical guidance on VISUAL approaches, which of course can be coupled to the AP. I hope this doesn't lead to the inability to fly a simple visual approach.

Cheers
TJ

[DHenriques_]

I've got two panel posters on my wall, one is a C182 w G1000, and the other a DA42 w G1000. Something very noticeable is where Cessna and Diamond put their standby gauges. Cessna puts AS/AI/ALT in a row between the yokes, under the G1000 unit. Diamond puts the AS/AI/ALT + Mag compass, all on the top row, above the G1000 unit. It seems Diamond's arrangement might be a little better for both the VFR flyer, as well as the IFR partial panel. Minimal head/eye movement in a low light cockpit is important.

Dudley, when I was learning to fly, I admittedly had a hard time keeping my eyes outside for a couple of reasons. When I was a child I got to ride in the right seat alot of a friend's Cessna, the instruments were at my 'eye' level, so I got used to reading those. That and some bad habits picked up from early flight simulators led to too much 'eyes inside' However the instructor was able to use instrument sticky covers which helped break that habit. I imagine it is much harder to teach students these days, the importance of "eyes outside", with today's fancy displays.

Cheers
TJ

Actually it's not harder at all really. The problem is the instruction. During the sixties here in the States, the FAA started stressing the need for instrument training at the PPL level. This unfortunately led to CFI's starting out new students immediately with emphasis on instrumentation and how to use it in everyday flying. Students were taught to focus on turn and bank indicators for turn quality and reference which was exactly the wrong approach. The result was an entire generation of pilots lacking basic stick and rudder skills and an almost total lack of visual cue abilities.
The answer of course was always in the middle. Instructors should have started students out from the first hour of dual teaching visual and physical cues as prime reference and instrumentation as a peripheral confirmation tool then when it was time to "learn instrument flying, revert from visual and physical cues on into the panel for both full and partial panel flying and all that implied.
It actually got so bad I could spot poorly trained pilots immediately on a check ride simply by asking for a simple medium banked turn. The pilot would either look in the direction of the turn before applying any controls then establish the turn by visual reference to the horizon or look in the direction of the turn then start a bank with their eyes on the panel.
So the overall problem is a double edged sword. We DON'T want a student community devoted to the instrument panel for basic flying and we DO want a student community that knows how to fly by physical and visual refernce AND has decent capability using both a full and a primary panel.
You can see by this that the issue is complex and as such requires a VERY GOOD instructor base.
I have been working this problem now for fifty years. We are making headway although the FAA does make it difficult for us in the instructor community. The new ACS for example, is a nightmare for a GOOD instructor !
Dudley Henriques

[Oracle427]

I learned to fly in a G1000, but I "learned" about flying on flight simulator going back to Sublogic FS II. Analog instruments have always felt more natural to me.

That said, I fly G1000 a lot and have grown accustomed to understanding trends and the key IMHO is to always use the bugs. If you are reading the numbers on tapes, you are already behind the curve. The numbers are history, the movement of the bugs are trends roughly equivalent to moving needles.

I do agree that it can suck you in if you don't make a conscious effort to maintain a scan, bit I disagree that one is better or worse.

Personally I prefer flying analog because it has more "character". That said the glass panels are rock solid and I've yet to suffer a failure of any component equivalent to an analog gyro driven component. I've had numerous attitude indicators need service, but yet to have something more serious than a sticky button in 8 years. It was also much cheaper to replace the bezel of a G1000 than to rebuild the AI by nearly half the cost.

99.9% of the problem is with training. It is very expensive, the instructors just want you to pass and the students just want to get the basics out of the way so they can both move on. The best instructors I had were the ones that didn't need the job. They were tough, knowledgeable and not teaching to some test or clock. The equipment is secondary.

[DHenriques_]

I learned to fly in a G1000, but I "learned" about flying on flight simulator going back to Sublogic FS II. Analog instruments have always felt more natural to me.

That said, I fly G1000 a lot and have grown accustomed to understanding trends and the key IMHO is to always use the bugs. If you are reading the numbers on tapes, you are already behind the curve. The numbers are history, the movement of the bugs are trends roughly equivalent to moving needles.

I do agree that it can suck you in if you don't make a conscious effort to maintain a scan, bit I disagree that one is better or worse.

Personally I prefer flying analog because it has more "character". That said the glass panels are rock solid and I've yet to suffer a failure of any component equivalent to an analog gyro driven component. I've had numerous attitude indicators need service, but yet to have something more serious than a sticky button in 8 years. It was also much cheaper to replace the bezel of a G1000 than to rebuild the AI by nearly half the cost.

99.9% of the problem is with training. It is very expensive, the instructors just want you to pass and the students just want to get the basics out of the way so they can both move on. The best instructors I had were the ones that didn't need the job. They were tough, knowledgeable and not teaching to some test or clock. The equipment is secondary.

There is nothing wrong with glass. It's a wonderful technology.
What's wrong are pilots highly trained on glass and only partially trained to use raw data. The problem begins when and if the glass goes down. In a way one can compare pilots lacking on raw data skills with instrument pilots of yesterday who were great using radar and VOR but started to sweat when ATC told them systems were down at the destination but they could opt for the ADF approach. ))))))
Dudley Henriques

[Oracle427]

What's a VOR?

I've been somewhat alarmed by the reaction of some pilots who are technology dependent and find that the technology doesn't perform to their expectations.

For example, on one occasion while I was right seat, just riding along, I spotted traffic that was closing and could eventually be a factor. The reaction of the pilot was to question why the traffic wasn't showing on the TIS not on their iPad on their lap. They were heads down in a busy airspace trying to debug the technology instead of flying the plane and maintaining good SA. Their reaction was to actually reduce SA and somewhat stop flying the plane.

I waited for a little to see if they would give up debugging the equipment, but they never did. They occasionally glanced out to try and find the traffic, but struggled to do that and deal with the fact that their traffic was not showing up on the scope.

Not really a glass thing, but highlights gaps in the training pilots are receiving. I love my primary instructor. He would cover up the G1000 with his clipboard all the time, our turn the brightness down ask the way. I had to fly without all the advanced gadgets until nearly done with my training.

[DHenriques_]

What's a VOR?

I've been somewhat alarmed by the reaction of some pilots who are technology dependent and find that the technology doesn't perform to their expectations.

For example, on one occasion while I was right seat, just riding along, I spotted traffic that was closing and could eventually be a factor. The reaction of the pilot was to question why the traffic wasn't showing on the TIS not on their iPad on their lap. They were heads down in a busy airspace trying to debug the technology instead of flying the plane and maintaining good SA. Their reaction was to actually reduce SA and somewhat stop flying the plane.

I waited for a little to see if they would give up debugging the equipment, but they never did. They occasionally glanced out to try and find the traffic, but struggled to do that and deal with the fact that their traffic was not showing up on the scope.

Not really a glass thing, but highlights gaps in the training pilots are receiving. I love my primary instructor. He would cover up the G1000 with his clipboard all the time, our turn the brightness down ask the way. I had to fly without all the advanced gadgets until nearly done with my training.

Interesting experience you had. Unfortunately happens all too often.
You would have loved flying with me. LOL
The first thing I did when we got to stalls was to cover up the ASI to make you "feel" where the airplane was in relation to stall.
I'd start out by telling you the only time the ASI was of any use at all when it came to stall was power off at gross weight and at 1g. For everything else you could throw the ASI out the window. You would be amazed how many pilots have told me,
" I never thought of it this way." ))))))))))
DH

[Oracle427]

I guess they've never read Stick and Rudder!

Bottom line is, I look forward to the upcoming releases. It is very exciting to to hear about these subtle changes that will add to the character of the aircraft and expose more of the dimensions that make piloting an aircraft such a magical experience.