Roost Air Lounge => Aviation related topics => Topic started by: Frank N. O. on March 30, 2006, 10:44:19 PM
Title: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 30, 2006, 10:44:19 PM
I wasn't quite sure if it fit under other threads but I have a few to show so I hope for the sake of order that I use a specific thread for it.
We've talked a bit about new and old designs and I found three good pictures of designs, two new planes and one brand-new update I'd like to show.
First off is Eric Lindberg's Lancair, a version with conventional instruments as opposed to the optional TFT screen, but the layout and "look" of the panel is at least for me a world of difference from the flat plate of say a classic Cessna. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0237443/L/ A glass-version is here: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0925812/L/ One of the really noticeable details is the strangely positioned control-stick, but the position of the instruments, radio and switches seems very nice to me, but sadly I haven't had the chance to try one out.
The other contender is the Cirrus SR-series, here a SR-22 http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0765666/L/ and another fantastic view (a lot better visibility than a Cardinal that's for sure) ttp://www.airliners.net/open.file/0796405/L/ I'd like to have seen the view from this SR-20 though, and I'd like to know what happend after that manouvre http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0951656/L/ Aha! Electronic integrated check-list! I thought of that myself, nice to see it can work: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0732336/L/
And now for the old school, a brand-new Cessna 172: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0868286/L/ And a 182 (notice anything special on the panel? I sure do!): http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0606391/L/
And speaking of controls, what's the thumb-switch aka hat-switch on the Cirrus-stick for?
Frank
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 30, 2006, 11:05:58 PM
I wasn't quite sure if it fit under other threads but I have a few to show so I hope for the sake of order that I use a specific thread for it.
We've talked a bit about new and old designs and I found three good pictures of designs, two new planes and one brand-new update I'd like to show.
First off is Eric Lindberg's Lancair, a version with conventional instruments as opposed to the optional TFT screen, but the layout and "look" of the panel is at least for me a world of difference from the flat plate of say a classic Cessna. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0237443/L/ A glass-version is here: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0925812/L/ One of the really noticeable details is the strangely positioned control-stick, but the position of the instruments, radio and switches seems very nice to me, but sadly I haven't had the chance to try one out.
The other contender is the Cirrus SR-series, here a SR-22 http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0765666/L/ and another fantastic view (a lot better visibility than a Cardinal that's for sure) ttp://www.airliners.net/open.file/0796405/L/ I'd like to have seen the view from this SR-20 though, and I'd like to know what happend after that manouvre http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0951656/L/ Aha! Electronic integrated check-list! I thought of that myself, nice to see it can work: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0732336/L/
And now for the old school, a brand-new Cessna 172: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0868286/L/ And a 182 (notice anything special on the panel? I sure do!): http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0606391/L/
And speaking of controls, what's the thumb-switch aka hat-switch on the Cirrus-stick for?
Frank
Not sure exactly what the thumb switch is on the Cirrus, but generally thumb switches are used for three things....
1) Electric trim control 2) Push to Talk switch for comm radios 3) Autopilot disconnect
I'm sure it's one of those three. The most likely use for one is Push to Talk, since it's most likely a plane will have that first ahead of electric trim or auto-pilot. So, if there is only one, that's most likely it (but please don't take my word for it and assume so... this is just by way of general info...final authority is the Pilot Operating Handbook). On the Cessna's I fly, there are three thumbswitches... one for each of the functions noted above... and actually the electric trim is a split switch, so you could really count it as 4. It's part of a safety interlock to prevent accident change in trim. You have to use the split switch together to change the pitch.
By the way, the Cessna cockpits are the Garmin G-1000 system glass panels. From the looks of it, the Cirrus are the Avidyne Integra glass cockpits.
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 31, 2006, 05:24:17 AM
In the SR-22, it looks like the PTT is on the front of the stick so you can toggle it with your index finger. If you look at the picture of the check list, you can see a good image of the stick. The hat is electric trim and autopilot disconnect. Haven't been able to find the separate trim control, though. Isn't that required for autopilot and electric trim?
I've had a chance to fly the G1000 through CAP. It's pretty awesome, and I'd say reasonably user friendly. The only thing I don't like is the placement of the steam gauges in the 182. They're placed kind of low and out of a normal scan.
The placard in that picture would concern me as a passenger. :)
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Roland on March 31, 2006, 08:49:02 AM
Hi Frank,
thanks again for a good question. Modern cockpits, or “glass-cockpits" as they are liked to be called, have opened a complete new way of cockpit management. First, and very obvious, the design and layout of the instrument panel is totally new. The screens make it a lot easier to tidy up the instrument panel and to save space whilst getting rid of all the “steam-gauges”.
Secondly the screens make it possible to give information to the pilot in a different, easier and more understandable way. And the designers of such display layouts are able to send even more information to the pilot. Let alone all the warnings, where in the old fashioned way you needed one bulb for each warning. Now you can send all kind of messages to the pilot.
Modern aircraft will all have any kind of “glass cockpit”. Our DA 42 has the Garmin 1000 on two screens installed. The DA 40 with Lycoming engines has it and the others will have it soon. By any chance look into the cockpit of an Agusta 109 Power. You will see six screens due the EFIS layout. EFIS = electronic flight instrument system.
It takes some time to get used to the different way of information displayed. There are no flickering needles turning any more but status-bars. But once used to it most of the pilots love it. And the engineers can communicate with the airplane a lot easier. You can create so many pages on such screens … After all, this is the new way of doing things. I don’t think that one will fit a Garmin or EFIS screen into a Piper PA 18 or Bücker Jungmeister.
If we have a Cirrus in the hangar next time I let you know about the switches in an instant.
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 31, 2006, 12:37:09 PM
Thanks for all the replies, most helpful :) For one thing I didn't even know small planes had electric trim as well as the manual wheel but I guess it just confirms that planes are much more diverse than cars, and I've only just scratched the surface of the differences, and that makes me wish I can continue to learn more, hopefully in person sometime.
Btw, Push-To-Talk is specifically the radio-transmit button right? The Cardinal I flew in had DC headsets and they were voice-activated for intercom use (that reminds me of the story about a couple up flying and talking about if they should be in the mile-high club, but they used the radio-transmit button and clocked up the radio-frequency for almost an hour! And forced the use of an emergency frequency for the other traffic, not sure if it's true or not, but it could be I guess).
Gulf, that's exactly what I was hinting at, and for those that didn't see it, it's the white sign on the far right, in front of the passenger, in red writting saying: --- Passenger Notice This plane does not comply with federal safety regulations for standard aircraft. --- Yikes! However it was on display so perhaps it wasn't certified yet so it probably hadn't been tested or something like that, but still....
Frank
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 31, 2006, 05:15:30 PM
Yes, the PTT button is only for radio transmissions. I've not heard of a headset that requires a PTT to use the intercom. Many intercom systems will cut out when a PTT button is pressed.
It is possible to have a stuck mike button. If you're doing a parallel ILS approach, you're required to have 2 radios just for that reason.
Also, if an airplane has a 2- or 3-axis autopilot, it has to have electric trim. It's the only way it can hold altitude. :)
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 31, 2006, 06:00:21 PM
In the SR-22, it looks like the PTT is on the front of the stick so you can toggle it with your index finger. If you look at the picture of the check list, you can see a good image of the stick. The hat is electric trim and autopilot disconnect. Haven't been able to find the separate trim control, though. Isn't that required for autopilot and electric trim?
I've had a chance to fly the G1000 through CAP. It's pretty awesome, and I'd say reasonably user friendly. The only thing I don't like is the placement of the steam gauges in the 182. They're placed kind of low and out of a normal scan.
The placard in that picture would concern me as a passenger. :)
Regarding the placement of the backup steam gauges.... It's like that on all the Cessna G-1000's. I believe they are actually working on getting the certifications done so the FAA will say it's okay to have the backup steam gauges removed. Not sure if I like that idea, after all, they still require it on military and commercial planes that have all glass. I do prefer the way the Diamond puts the backups up top above the PFD and MFD. Even if you never have to use them, you know they are there, and if worse comes to worse, they're in a much better spot.
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 31, 2006, 07:03:14 PM
Even if they were on the side, they'd be easier to include in a scan. Cessna should have called us before they designed it. :D
I don't think I'd fly a glass cockpit without back-ups. Just seems reckless to me....
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 31, 2006, 07:16:31 PM
Even if they were on the side, they'd be easier to include in a scan. Cessna should have called us before they designed it. :D
I don't think I'd fly a glass cockpit without back-ups. Just seems reckless to me....
You know what's ironic, in the military jets the backup instruments are electrically operated. So, if you lose electric for your EFIS and WSO ECM Systems due to damage or other problem, they are not likely to work anyway. Of course, if you're in that bad a situation, the plane is likely coming apart on you anyway as the on-board computer systems would be offline and the plane is going to rip itself apart in all likelihood... meaning you're going to be exiting via the ejection seat and not going to worry about the backup instruments.
I know one guy that actually stuck a smiley face sticker over his backup attitude indicator on his F/A-18 E :) (No... I'm not saying his name ... the bovine scattalogical matter would impact the impeller blades then for certain! :) )
I do agree with you about not having backups in the GA, and other aircraft. At least with those, you're not likely to have airfoil surfaces making corrections 30 times per second under computer control while in flight and you have a real opportunity for a good outcome.
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: fireflyr on April 02, 2006, 04:14:11 PM
I'm wondering how many pilots will remain current enough at interpreting raw data to be able to shift back to steam gauges in an emergency.
I consider myself both proficient and current but have, over the years had failures of a various instruments while IMC (actually, once a total vacuum failure another was a simple HSI failure, and another was a total electrical meltdown) these caused enough anxiety in themselves which makes me wonder how a pilot trained in a glass cockpit will react to the need to go to raw data in such a situation. I'm sure it will depend a great deal on the individual and on the quality of training each has received which opens the question of what kind of training standards have been set for glass cockpit equipped aircraft?
Just some random thoughts---any comments??? :-\
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Frank N. O. on April 02, 2006, 04:51:50 PM
I agree. I do enjoy to make things efficient, but within proper limits. I myself drove an old car, 1989 Ford Orion (Escort sedan-version a'la Golf/Jetta) and it had just a simple early mechanical ABS-system that really never worked, and manual steering and load-sensitive brake-force valve in the back and I think it was nice to "read". The new 2001 Peugeot 206 is much quiter and the PAS (non-electric to my knowledge) is bad, it often looses full "steam" when turning at low speeds almost ripping my arms off but I can steer wildly with 1 finger on each spoke of the wheel at freeway speed, and the Orion 1.6 mk2 weighed 875kg and the 206 1.4 950 kg but I've driven a Orion mk3 1.8 16V Zetec model with manual steering at 1050kg and it was no problem so I don't understand the design for the 206 since it just adds weight and swallows power and gives false readings thrue the wheel which is bad for slippery driving conditions. Modern cars are so insolated from noise and vibration that I dare to say that what the driver gains by less fatigue does not match the risk of lack of control-feel for the car, and the new steps with ESP, brake-assist (and ABS that's made un-noticeable which is also bad) and even fly-by-wire brakes with no mechanical link and steering-systems that working to help the ESP can change the steering.wheel angle from what you turn, it's insane. Either you drive the car or you don't. I understand there have been good advancements like ABS, maybe also EBD and TC but ESP is pushing it unless it's for a road-train with a trailer, and brake-assist and the fly-by-wire brakes and steering (that used to be illegal btw) is overboard.
This may seem off-topic but driver or pilot, it's similar, you are controller of a vehicle and need to be able to operate that vehicle safely and that means you need to know what it does and if you can't feel anything, you can't tell much. The 206 is technically a older car with a new design, so the car has proven to be made with bad botched compromises to give it modern levels of comfort, like suspension-bushins so soft I have felt what could only be the links banging into each-other going over mild bumps and especially when steering out of a parkinglot with one wheel on ice then jerking the car sideways like one wheel's camber was changed when the wheel gained grip again and I was going slowly, and metal-klang thrue the steering over bumps also hint of bushings that are too soft, and that goes for the engine-mounts too after a bad start timed with misfiring on the electronic engine-management and the car's engine is quite weak, really weak.
Ok, the short of the long (danish version of: long story short) then I think a person should not only focus on the vehicle control but also know more than basics on it and should be able to tell what that vehicle is doing and not rely solely on one system, in planes that would be fly-by-wire or glass-cockpit instruments and in cars there should be wheel-feedback and noise-feedback etc.
I fear this looks more like a narrow-minded rant than a serious but serious discussion about vehicle-control but I hope you see the sincere, serious but calm points I'm trying to make, and that I hope to hear your experience in these matters to gain wider perspective.
Frank
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on April 02, 2006, 05:24:38 PM
Ok, the short of the long (danish version of: long story short) then I think a person should not only focus on the vehicle control but also know more than basics on it and should be able to tell what that vehicle is doing and not rely solely on one system, in planes that would be fly-by-wire or glass-cockpit instruments and in cars there should be wheel-feedback and noise-feedback etc.
This is the concept behind a Commercial license. It teaches you to know everything about your airplane, even if it's mundane. It's also why Private Pilots aren't allowed in the clouds. ;)
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: fireflyr on April 02, 2006, 06:34:42 PM
Quote
This is the concept behind a Commercial license. It teaches you to know everything about your airplane, even if it's mundane. It's also why Private Pilots aren't allowed in the clouds. ;)
Quote
???OOPS!!!---What's that again?? Seems I've known a few Privatepilots with Instrument ratings. ;)
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on April 02, 2006, 09:18:29 PM
That's Cirrus's big problem now. New owners only get 10 hours of training, then they're out the door whether they're ready or not. Almost every Cirrus accident lately has been "continued VFR into IMC." New Cirrus pilots are mostly privates with money and don't know their limitations.
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: fireflyr on April 02, 2006, 11:29:22 PM
:D Sounds like the relationship of doctors and Bonanzas--often time, accumulation of wealth is seen as a sign extreme ability rather than what it really is, which is luck and timing, and after making that mistake, these people think they can just about do anything they want and disregard common sense. ie; RFK jr I'll repeat "If not for Bonanzas, there'd be more doctors, and if not for doctors, there'd be more Bonanzas too."
The biggest killer among pilots with money is attitude--of course that's just my opinion and just like anal apertures, we all have our own. ;D
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on April 03, 2006, 02:38:48 AM
Did you mean JFK, Jr? His problem was more his passengers than his money. See what happens when you listen to women? ;D ;)
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: fireflyr on April 03, 2006, 05:54:40 AM
;D OK, I screwed up again--it was J fk jr--and you're riight about listening to the fairer sex (except for my wife of course-she's always right) but the point I was making is valid. Some professionals who are succesful are at risk of exceeding their limitations in an airplane BECAUSE of their success. Be careful here and note I said some, not most. Anytime I fly with one, (a jerk) I try to broach the subject in a diplomatic manner after I evaluate the individual's ability---could be it is easier for me because of my age but nonetheless, I find that after being very frank with them about their decision making abilities, most are grateful to me for the reality check. I'm not afraid to say what I think and I feel that's very important, a CFI giving a BFR is in a unique position to save lives. Had a local car dealer do the "VFR into IMC conditions" thing last year, killed himself and 2 passengers plus he ruined a perfectly good T-210 and several cases of a great Sonoma County Cabernet---might have ben avoided with an honest BFR evaluation, or not. If you fly with a jerk, tell him he's a jerk, what the heck, he's not coming back for 2 years anyway and if your employer objects, well, he's a jerk too and you were looking for a job when you found this one, so screw him too! I've outflown AND outlived most crummy employers, and that, in itself is satisfying enough. Remember, if you wouldn't ride in the back seat while the guy or gal is flying, tell them so, you'll save some lives. 8)
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Roland on April 03, 2006, 02:02:24 PM
Interesting to follow this discussion. Here in Europe it is compulsory to have back-up instruments to the „screens“. Further it is necessary to have the screens electrically supplied to the very last extent. There is a complex system behind it to make sure this tings work, at least one screen with the most essential information on it. We all know, what can break will break. And it happened.
To the thoughts, if pilots can work with raw information only. I do agree with the idea, it is up to the pilot himself and his training. But go to any cockpit and take out the GPS. What will happen? Here in Europe GPS is not permitted to use as a primary navigation aid. But remove it. It is fascinating to watch the dramas which will unfold … I would think, that a pilot should be able to navigate with the common aids as there are ADF, VOR, … But no. Without GPS no flying. True or not?
Glass cockpits in small aircraft are a kind of fashion. If they are necessary there, I don’t know.
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: fireflyr on April 03, 2006, 03:29:57 PM
Good post Roland,
I believe all glass cockpits here are required to have backups and you are right about the unfolding drama that will take place if the GPS is removed from service for SOME people. However, most pilots I know can navigate just fine without them because most (myself included) don't use the GPS to it's full potential anyway. The point I was making in my last post (I was in a fiery mood after reading an accident report) is that GPS and glass cockpits are great but raw data utilization has to be the cornerstone of every instrument pilot's training. If you can't fly partial panel on raw data alone, you have absolutely no business flying IMC---none---no exceptions!
Also, I was emphasizing the need for flight instructors to realize that they are the most important link in any safety program---many are just building time for a "real" job and lose sight of the fact that they are the professional pilot who can do the most to change sloppy habits.
So, everyone, let us take the time today to salute flight instructors everywhere for the thankless and often underpaid job that they do--- HERE'S TO YOU, GUYS AND GALS-- |:)\ |:)\ |:)\ |:)\
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Ted_Stryker on April 03, 2006, 04:08:57 PM
Just to clarify, glass cockpits do have redundancy built into the systems, though Avidyn's seems to suffer a few drawbacks to theirs that are not present in the Garmin G-1000 series. One also needs to be cognizant of how a given package works in an individual aircraft. By that I mean the G-1000 in a Cessna cockpit has a different battery backup life capacity than the Diamond version. So, one should not be complacent about what they think they know about a given glass cockpit. It can change from manufacturer to manufacturer, and even model to model within the same manufacturer, based on what the manufacturer has designed in and desires.
In general terms though, the PFD (Primary Flight Display), shows an inset map replication of the MFD display normally on the G-1000 (yes, you can select this feature on or off), but if you should lose your PFD unit, it will automatically switch the functions of the PFD to the MFD instantly. So, that's one form of backup. Additionally, you have dual electrical systems, and a battery power reserve. If all that goes away, you still have your backup "steam gauges" (hope you have a flashlight handy at night as per the FAR's though!).
In addition to having backup capacity as illustrated above, systems like the Garmin G-1000 use FRU's (Field Replaceable Units), so if one component goes out, you simply "plug and play" a replacement into the system. Even the displays are FRU's, and work on a LAN (Local Area Network...just like a computer in your office) built into the aircraft. Currently, the PFD and MFD are actually identical pieces of equipment that can be swapped out fully interchangeably. Next year, however, Garmin will be including a number of new features, including a new alphanumeric flight-director style keypad, and the MFD will also have a fully integrated autopilot on it, so it will become a different part number than the PFD.
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Frank N. O. on April 05, 2006, 02:11:42 AM
I'm slightly puzzled by this since it's said that the electronic instruments (aka glass-cockpit systems) have multiple redundancy systems and some claimed they are safer than old instruments, I think I read that in one of my US plane magazines regarding certification of a integrated flight suite, so how come there is a need for the so-called steam-gauges as well, do they have back-up systems also? Is it a problem of wires burning out or failing due to conditions on-board the plane, like vibration, heat and cold etc. or something else? For the record then while I would like a re-design of the six-pack then I don't think the system with the artificial horizon filling the whole screen and having the VSI, IAS and altimeter displayed over that landscape is a good idea, too confusing in my humble opinion. Regarding back-ups then I did plan on having my plane equipped with special compartments for printed checklists and possibly also printed airport charts for my trip in case there was a problem with the on-board computer or the GPS system.
Regarding navigation with GPS then I also think that it could be a good idea to learn the classic radio-beacon navigation skills even if you normally use GPS which I think has good sides, especially with super-imposed data like weather, landscape etc. It would still be good to have a fall-back system that's tried and tested that VOR is.
Btw, speaking of night-flying and instrument-flying, has anyone tried flying in the night with a night-vision or IR vision system? Just wondering.
Frank
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Ted_Stryker on April 05, 2006, 07:46:16 AM
I'm slightly puzzled by this since it's said that the electronic instruments (aka glass-cockpit systems) have multiple redundancy systems and some claimed they are safer than old instruments, I think I read that in one of my US plane magazines regarding certification of a integrated flight suite, so how come there is a need for the so-called steam-gauges as well, do they have back-up systems also? Is it a problem of wires burning out or failing due to conditions on-board the plane, like vibration, heat and cold etc. or something else? For the record then while I would like a re-design of the six-pack then I don't think the system with the artificial horizon filling the whole screen and having the VSI, IAS and altimeter displayed over that landscape is a good idea, too confusing in my humble opinion. Regarding back-ups then I did plan on having my plane equipped with special compartments for printed checklists and possibly also printed airport charts for my trip in case there was a problem with the on-board computer or the GPS system.
Regarding navigation with GPS then I also think that it could be a good idea to learn the classic radio-beacon navigation skills even if you normally use GPS which I think has good sides, especially with super-imposed data like weather, landscape etc. It would still be good to have a fall-back system that's tried and tested that VOR is.
Btw, speaking of night-flying and instrument-flying, has anyone tried flying in the night with a night-vision or IR vision system? Just wondering.
Frank
Re: Backups.... I always carry paper sectionals, terminal area charts, and approach plates, with the ones for my planned and alternates at the ready in case. At night, I also have no less than FOUR different flashlights of various kinds. Two bright ones for preflight work, and two dual illumination types for in-cockpit work. By dual illumination I mean ones that can switch between white and red lighting with either a twist of the lens, or rotation of a switch. I also have spare batteries for each flashlight... and ... yes... extra bulbs for the non-LED lights.
I plan all my trips with EVERY form of navigation, and am prepared to use each in case of a problem. By that I mean I know my navaids, including my NDB's (if there is an ADF in the plane), VOR's, and I check to make sure I have RAIM on the GPS, and that I even have extra satellites in the constellation available hopefully. I also plan with pilotage, and dead reckoning. It may sound like overkill, but I have seen the outcome of poor planning when I was with C.A.P. and I have no desire to end up an NTSB statistic. Besides, it's great practice!
As for why the steam gauges.... it's an FAA requirement that they have them in the cockpits for these things... it's not a matter of the design being without failsafes... in fact, on the Diamond, the AI is electrically driven, so if you lose everything else, you're down to altimiter and airspeed essentially. Just as with military planes having a backup AI, they have to be there to pass FAA type certification and acceptance.... but if the plane is bad enough off where those actually end up being used, something has gone dreadfully wrong with a heck of a lot first, and you should not have a situation where things have progressed to that point without having had adequate time to land somewhere... hopefully.... safely. Of course, in the military scenario, you can eject :)
In many regards, there is more redundancy in the glass cockpit environment than there is in the steam gauge environment. You can have an AHRS system failure (Altitude and Heading Reference System computer... one of the components in the glass cockpit systems), and you'll get red "X"'s appearing on the failed information blocks, but other systems will remain functional, and you still have the other backups. An AHRS failure is probably the worst thing that can go wrong as an individual piece of equipment.... and it's more likely than an electrical system failure with the dual electric... unless you end up with a fire, of course.
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on April 05, 2006, 05:14:39 PM
Frank, if you look carefully at your post, you'll see you answered your own question again.
Regarding navigation with GPS then I also think that it could be a good idea to learn the classic radio-beacon navigation skills even if you normally use GPS which I think has good sides, especially with super-imposed data like weather, landscape etc. It would still be good to have a fall-back system that's tried and tested that VOR is.
The steam guages have been around for 70 years. They work, and they're simple to operate. Theoretically, they should be the last thing to fail. But, if those are all you have in solid IFR, you're in trouble. Now, on the G1000, the GPS is a completely separate system from the other flight data computers, so if you lose all of your instrumentation, you should still have GPS and the radios. Unless, of course, you have a complete electrical failure and all the batteries are dead. Then you're hosed.
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Ted_Stryker on April 05, 2006, 06:07:56 PM
Something I guess I should clarify too is that you DO have VOR, NDB, and GPS needles available, even concurrently, on the G-1000 PFD. You still learn and use the traditional forms of electronic navigation... just that tuning your OBS, etc. is done on screen instead of through a traditional twist knob on a steam gauge instrument, and you have GPS added into the capabilities at the same time.
Between the terrain elevation, TCAS, weather radar, METARS and dynamic fuel range calcs, the G-1000, and other glass cockpits, have it in spades above the traditional steam gauges.
Having said that, consider this. Would you want someone who was trained from the get-go on nothing but all glass to fly a steam gauge bird? I think you'll find the answer is a resounding NO. Why? Because, frankly, if you fly a steam gauge plane without GPS on board (which still comprises a heck of a lot of the aircraft out there), it's HARDER to navigate with the old needle interpretation systems. It's just not as user-friendly. So, if you do want to learn to fly a glass cockpit bird, learn steam first, then upgrade. A G-1000 cockpit checkout should run about 5 to 6 hours or so. And once you go glass, you don't want to go back :)
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: C310RCaptian on April 05, 2006, 07:52:16 PM
I’ve been fallowing the posts here about new cockpits. One thing I fail to see is any type of IFR backup. Let me explain. If you are hard IFR in the cirrus and the displays (both) fail you can still fly an approach using the GPS for guidance (in the 172 or 182 you can’t even do that), but you can not shoot an ILS because you have no GS indicator and that’s a big problem to me. I fly in a lot of bad weather and it’s not because I want to it’s because I have to. If the ceiling is above ILS minimums we are going. It’s a fact of my life. And yes I do have alternates filled incase of a missed and I've only done that twice in my life.
Now If the GPS goes out with the displays you can not shoot any approach, not even a radar vector approach…. Why not a radar vector, because, there is no back up radio. The GPS is the radio. Both nav and com. So if airspeed, attitude indicator and an altimeter, qualify as a back up system then, a lot of people will be in trouble in IFR if there system fails. The only option you are left with is FIND VFR. You cant even do the 3 C’s of lost procedures (because that’s what you will be in IFR without any way to reference yourself). The 3 C’s are: Climb (no one has run into the sky yet... that I know of ;D) Communicate (that’s out, with the radios) Comply (no one to comply with). Also you can’t squawk 7600 (loss of comm.) in the 172 or 182 because the transponder is imbedded into the G1000 also.
I do love the abilities of the systems. I love the way it displays information to me and the user friendliness. However, I wont trust it just yet hard IFR without a really good backup.
O and I have no problems with the lancair. Plenty of redundancy it you look at it close enough. :)
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Ted_Stryker on April 05, 2006, 08:17:29 PM
I’ve been fallowing the posts here about new cockpits. One thing I fail to see is any type of IFR backup. Let me explain. If you are hard IFR in the cirrus and the displays (both) fail you can still fly an approach using the GPS for guidance (in the 172 or 182 you can’t even do that), but you can not shoot an ILS because you have no GS indicator and that’s a big problem to me. I fly in a lot of bad weather and it’s not because I want to it’s because I have to. If the ceiling is above ILS minimums we are going. It’s a fact of my life. And yes I do have alternates filled in case of a missed and I've only done that twice in my life.
Now If the GPS goes out with the displays you can not shoot any approach, not even a radar vector approach…. Why not a radar vector, because, there is no back up radio. The GPS is the radio. Both nav and com. So if airspeed, attitude indicator and an altimeter, qualify as a back up system then, a lot of people will be in trouble in IFR if there system fails. The only option you are left with is FIND VFR. You cant even do the 3 C’s of lost procedures (because that’s what you will be in IFR without any way to reference yourself). The 3 C’s are: Climb (no one has run into the sky yet... that I know of ;D) Communicate (that’s out, with the radios) Comply (no one to comply with). Also you can’t squawk 7600 (loss of comm.) in the 172 or 182 because the transponder is embedded into the G1000 also.
I do love the abilities of the systems. I love the way it displays information to me and the user friendliness. However, I wont trust it just yet hard IFR without a really good backup.
O and I have no problems with the Lancair. Plenty of redundancy it you look at it close enough. :)
I do tend to agree with you about the hard IFR, but things can fail in a conventional cockpit too. You can have a VOR head go out, and unless you have GS on both VOR's, you've just lost vertical guidance that way. The next thing you do is your backup with time and maintaining your airspeed so you end up where you are supposed to be on the approach, as you already know. No system is perfect, that's for sure. Something can always break somewhere. It's also why, even with two nav/comms, I still carry my Sporty's SP200 Transceiver with me for both a NAV and COMM backup... and I have plenty of spare batteries preloaded in a backup battery pack for it too.
Let's face it... Murphy's Law prevails.... and Murphy was an optimist!! ;D
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on April 05, 2006, 11:08:14 PM
It wouldn't be a bad idea to carry at least Ted's tranceiver. I would opt for that and a hand-held GPS, if I had the cash. (Students, close your eyes) Even if you lose everything else, and the weather is at ILS minimums, you can still get down. In my mind, it's an emergency situation. Do whatever you need to get down.
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Frank N. O. on April 06, 2006, 02:29:52 AM
Frank, if you look carefully at your post, you'll see you answered your own question again.
ROFL I am really good at that huh :D
I must say though that, again, it's nice to see I'm not the only one that don't want to take risks when operating a vehicle, it is so comforting :) I must say as well that Mr. Strker is really well prepared! My utmost respect |:)\ The lights reminds me of a great aviation joke however: Scene: Student and instructor are on a dual, night cross country. Instructor: Turns down the panel lights, "OK, you've just lost your lights, what are you going to do?" Student pulls out a flashlight. Student: "I get out my flashlight." Instructor grabs flashlight. Instructor: "The batteries are dead, now what are you going to do?" Student pulls out another flashlight. Student: "I get out my other flashlight." Instructor grabs next flashlight. Instructor: "The bulb is burned out on this one, now what?" Student pulls out yet a third flashlight. Student: "I use this flashlight." Instructor grabs this one too. Instructor: "ALL your flashlights are dead. Now what?" Student: "I use this glow stick." Instructor: "Sighhhhhh, just fly the plane without any lights, OK?"
Frank
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Ted_Stryker on April 06, 2006, 03:39:55 PM
Frank, if you look carefully at your post, you'll see you answered your own question again.
ROFL I am really good at that huh :D
I must say though that, again, it's nice to see I'm not the only one that don't want to take risks when operating a vehicle, it is so comforting :) I must say as well that Mr. Strker is really well prepared! My utmost respect |:)\ The lights reminds me of a great aviation joke however: Scene: Student and instructor are on a dual, night cross country. Instructor: Turns down the panel lights, "OK, you've just lost your lights, what are you going to do?" Student pulls out a flashlight. Student: "I get out my flashlight." Instructor grabs flashlight. Instructor: "The batteries are dead, now what are you going to do?" Student pulls out another flashlight. Student: "I get out my other flashlight." Instructor grabs next flashlight. Instructor: "The bulb is burned out on this one, now what?" Student pulls out yet a third flashlight. Student: "I use this flashlight." Instructor grabs this one too. Instructor: "ALL your flashlights are dead. Now what?" Student: "I use this glow stick." Instructor: "Sighhhhhh, just fly the plane without any lights, OK?"
Frank
LOL!!!!! ;D ;D I can visualize that one, Frank!!! Excellent!!
Sometimes it does feel like one of those old "Get Smart" episodes where they go to disarm, and it takes half an hour for them to go through all the stuff they are carrying on them! ;D ;D
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Roland on April 07, 2006, 06:32:23 AM
Ahh, now I know what’s in that big, box shaped, leather pilots bags. Flashlights. Now it makes sense to me… :D
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Ted_Stryker on April 07, 2006, 05:03:53 PM
Ahh, now I know what’s in that big, box shaped, leather pilots bags. Flashlights. Now it makes sense to me… :D
The oldest pilot with the largest flight bag when he dies WINS! ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Frank N. O. on April 08, 2006, 12:09:39 AM
Roland: Lol, good one!
And about the bags, it's now how big the bag is but what you have in it! ok maybe not a good one but I just wanted to keep a good thing rolling, that makes me wonder btw, are there any flight-bags so big they have wheels at the corner like those big plastic-suitcases you haul after you at the airport? That would be funny :D
Frank
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Frank N. O. on April 14, 2006, 06:11:41 PM
I was wondering, how much work is it to retrofit a plane's panel, even with using modular instruments? I know they have to be tested but how complicated is it to install new instruments and probably also make a new panel to mount them in? Does it need to be tested or just inspected before the plane is legal again? I wondered this after seeing the difference between a old Rockwell Aero Commander 112 and a facelifted Commander 115 panel and while the basic shape was the same then the isntrumetns and buttons were arranged a lot better in my opinion, also interesting to see a plane with electric cowl flaps instead of a lever. Oh yeah that reminds me, is it possible to mount a different throttle-lever, for instance one that was bent slightly back so it's easier to reach? Or maybe some other knobs on the levers.
Frank
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Ted_Stryker on April 14, 2006, 06:37:58 PM
I was wondering, how much work is it to retrofit a plane's panel, even with using modular instruments? I know they have to be tested but how complicated is it to install new instruments and probably also make a new panel to mount them in? Does it need to be tested or just inspected before the plane is legal again? I wondered this after seeing the difference between a old Rockwell Aero Commander 112 and a facelifted Commander 115 panel and while the basic shape was the same then the isntrumetns and buttons were arranged a lot better in my opinion, also interesting to see a plane with electric cowl flaps instead of a lever. Oh yeah that reminds me, is it possible to mount a different throttle-lever, for instance one that was bent slightly back so it's easier to reach? Or maybe some other knobs on the levers.
Frank
Well, I'm not a mechanic of any kind, but I can tell you what I know from my work here at Boeing, and having seen other projects done by people. Anyone with first-hand experience, please feel free to correct any misstatements by me please!
First, how much work is it to retrofit a plane's panel. ... answer... depends on the plane, and what the differences are in the new instruments being put in versus the originals. For instance, if there is going to be a new instrument put in that has different electrical requirements, obviously you have a lot more work ahead of you potentially. Same could be true of vaccuum based systems where hoses may be aged and in need of changing out, etc. If the physical dimensions of the new instruments are different than the old, it could also mean work on the panel's structure itself. As for inspections and re-certification, I'm not sure... so some A&P AI folks... please speak up! :)
I will say that one really can't easily do a mod where you change a steam gauge Cessna to a G-1000 panel. There's just too much of a difference between all the electrical systems, network, and sensors to make such a mod undertaking viable compared to just buying the plane that way in the first place. Future panel upgrades, however, on such G-1000 or similar systems is often going to be more a matter of inserting a new circuit card, and downloading new software, than physically changing out a panel component unless it's a Flight Directory input panel, or, a standard G-1000 DU with a newer right-side DU with AP built in for the MFD. Even there, it's "plug and play" on the new systems practically.
Is it possible to mount a different throttle lever... yes... but that too may require potentially extensive rework. On a Cessna, for instance, it might be a tougher job, whereas on a Piper, where the levers are interconnected differently with internal linkage arms, it might be an easier undertaking. I'd also be wary of changing the knobs on levers to any non-standard shapes. Part of a pilot's training is to be able to identify the type of lever by feel alone for the sake of safety. For instance, the throttle lever is usually a smooth round knob. A mixture control is usually a ridged red knob right next to the throttle. A flap control is usually a flat, rectangular switch, or a handle similar to an emergency brake on a car. And a gear lever is usually a vertically mounted disc that feels reminiscent of a tire... for obvious reasons. These kinds of standard shapes have come into use over the years, and works very well to help in contingent circumstances. In fact, during training, a flight instructor may give the prospective pilot the "blindfold test", where you have to indentify what you are touching by feel and placement alone.
Of course... given enough time, will, money, and resources... anything is possible :)
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Frank N. O. on April 15, 2006, 10:15:11 PM
One of things I had in mind was replacing old analogue instruments with newer ones with a different design and maybe some smaller ones for the the engine to get them out of the back of the yoke and still have space for radios and navigation like I've seen on the new Commander 115 vs the old 112/114's.
The handles were more since some planes like the Commander have all 3 main levers right next to each other and they are all equally tall so I was wondering if they were at risk to get pushed if moving one of the other ones. I did suspect there was a std. in at least colour and knob-shape for the three lever-knobs since they all seemed identical on a lot of different GA planes but the knob was mainly a more grip-friendly one for the throttle but of course it's not for sure it's needed, I need to try them out before I can decide that, and after a nice sunny drive to Roskilde Airport and looking at several planes taking off and landing I can't wait.
I was wondering, why are plane-seats so flat? Is it because they are too thing to have a semi-bucket-shape? While planes don't corner like a car then I for one would still appreciate sitting in the seat instead on a flat bench, and so would my back btw. Besides needing to look at weight and having tested fire-retardent materials what other concerns are there to replace airplane seats in a GA plane?
Thank you for the replies :) Frank
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on April 17, 2006, 05:43:51 PM
Be careful about making engine instruments too small. You still have to see them. :)
The handles are all the same height so you can find them without having to look. You shouldn't have to worry about them running into each other unless you have ginormous hands. :) They're spaced so that won't happen.
Can't speak about the seats, except that most seats are 30 years old. That's probably why they're uncomfortable.
Title: Re: Modern Instrument-panels
Post by: Frank N. O. on April 17, 2006, 08:22:38 PM
True, that's a good concern about the instruments, but it's not like it seems the square instruments behind the yoke on the early Commanders, and many other period planes, compared to the more compact ones on the right of the main instruments on the new Commander 115 models.
The quesiton about the length of the levers is also that other planes have varied lengths, specifically the throttle higher than the others but I guess a ton of my questions could be answered within 5 minutes of having access to a real plane, even just on the ground with the engine off.
Good point about the seats. I remember the seats in my dad's old 84 Ford Fiesta Diesel vs the 89 Ford Orion's and the current 01 Peugeot 206 and they were/are all base family-models.
