“OBJECTS MAY APPEAR CLOSER THAN ACTUAL” or is it the other way around? and do you ever look into the “rear view mirror”
In reply to:
I view the primary purpose of the PFD is to act as an expanded and easier to interpret artificial horizon. As such, its purpose is to keep you flying stright and level when you need to be level and in the proper turn configuration when you are turning. In short, its function is to keep the “right side up”.
I agree!! But the shaded sky and land on the PFD clearly give the illusion of looking out the windshield (as it was designed to do) and looking out the windshield gives you much more than attitude information. All I’m saying is a “realistic” PFD could give you a subliminal signal that you’re flying into terrain-free air when, as you point out, it’s only purpose (at least in the Cirrus) is to help you keep the right side up. So why not remove even that slight chance of misinterpretation? A good argument not to would be that the shaded sky and land improve the attitude awareness to such an extent that the slight chance of terrain misinterpretation is an acceptable tradeoff. (A much better argument, IMHO, than Dennis’ “that’s Bul*sh**.”)
If it can be improved, great. Progress is a wonderful thing.
Let me just say that FOR ME the PFD presentation is clear and easy to interpret. Its function is to show me where the real horizon would be if I could see it, unblocked by weather or terrain. As I descend into the N GA mountains at night or in IMC, I don’t think I’ve ever glanced at the PFD and had the feeling that “the coast was clear”. My main concern is the MEA or if off airways (normal for me) what the MVA is, confirmed with the MFD/sectional.
I’ve really tried to imagine how the PFD could be improved to eliminate the ambiguity you discern. Other than warnings in red over the “sky” portion that there is no terrain information provided, I can’t think of anything…
…can you?
In reply to:
Seems likely that several accident pilots made some bad interpretations. Can we do something to prevent that?
You are still here making jokes, and I like that, but they are no longer with us, and I don’t like that.
Cheers
Rick
Rick, the answer is Yes, I am still here, and
Yes, something can be done. Lots of things can be done, but
That does not absolve pilots from absolute personal responsibility.
It was true for Charles Lindburg and it’s true for us.
The equipment doesn’t matter
The pilot does matter
Every pilot, no matter what equipment with which he works
must work within
His ability and
His ability to interpret and understand the limitations of the equipment.
This, my friend, is the problem with TAA.
We tend to rely on the technology rather than relying on our skills as aviatiors. We forget how to fly in deference to technology.
And that’s no joke.
Do our children know how to add . . . without a calculator?
Joe:
There have been a lot of studies on attitude indicators that basically show the following result:
- The larger the display, the less likely pilots are to end “belly up”.
- When color is added to the display, it helps KEEP the pilots “belly up”.
- The big problem with all attitude indicators is their poor ability to show you they have failed. At least the electric attitude indicators have a red flag and the PFD has the big red X’s.
A lot of the work was done to see if VFR only pilots could keep the plane strsight and level and the larger displays helped in that regard.
I am not aware of any data that has shown that a larger or impeoved attitude indicator gives the “impression” that it is the ground that the pilot is looking at. The mere “bland” nature of the “brown” would make it hard to believe that anyone really thinks it is the ground in the instrument.
I think your suggestion adds a whole new role to the PFD; that of terrain avoidance. For that purpose, the attitude indicator and the PFD were NOT designed. If terrain data WERE included, I could conceive of a situation where a pilot MAY try to fly blind below MOCA’s using the terrain PFD as a source of terrain avoidance. THAT WOULD BE TRULY DANGEROUS as one downdraft in the hills could put you right into that terrain.
The IFR system was invented years ago and works well. Lets just try to get people to stick to it and you will see a lot fewer accidents. Month after month there are a series of VFR into IFR weather accidents and most of these folks do not have a PFD. ALL of them do not belong there.
I agree with Jim completely.
Good guys, VFR and IFR, Cirrus, and others, keep flying into terrain.
We have GPS, and the computer power to provide an integrated, fool-proof solution.
As a previous TAWS discussion indicates, we are all occasionally fools, and each of us occasionally needs idiot proof help.
PFD stands for Primary Flight Display; avoiding terrain seems primary to me.
As in the previous discussions, I am surprised at the vehemence of some towards TAWS and further integration.
Could not agree more and was the nature of my post a few days ago. We need to fly like we do not have the TAA features rather than rely of them to replace pilot skills.
In reply to:
Other than warnings in red over the “sky” portion that there is no terrain information provided, I can’t think of anything…
…can you?
Yes . . . The sky colors could be keyed to the garmin clock so that when flying over water at sunset, you would see this on the PFD. That way, you would also know that night is coming.
Now if you saw this, you wouldn’t be confused, would you?
In reply to:
I’ve really tried to imagine how the PFD could be improved to eliminate the ambiguity you discern. Other than warnings in red over the “sky” portion that there is no terrain information provided, I can’t think of anything…can you?
My recommendation would be to make the display less lifelike by removing the shading from the blue and brown and replacing them with solid colors. It wouldnÂ’t be as pretty, but I donÂ’t think youÂ’d lose much in terms of attitude info, and yet the display would look less like youÂ’re looking out an actual windshield.
Then again, IÂ’m no human factors engineer. (But my guess is that issues such this one are not unknown in that discipline.)
If this flight was simply a matter of flying into a mountain, at night, with passengers, in 4 mile visibility or less, and mist, no IFR plan…sheesh! As the Nall report always shows, VFR flight into IMC or virtual IMC, whether by an inexperienced VFR pilot or even a highly experienced IFR pilot, is always a leading source of fatal accidents. No electronics, charts, re-training, TWAS or anything else would have prevented that accident. It is, sadly, in the same category as most GA fatals: a pilot doing exactly what he knows better than to do, what he has been trained NOT to do, and what all of us constantly remind ourselves not to do. Some persist in doing it anyway.
Brian,
I have no squabble with “bigger-is-better” when it comes to AI’s or PFD’s, and I’m not suggesting that the PFD be used to avoid terrain – only that it display as accurately as possible the info it was meant to, and not give the illusion (however subliminal) that you have more info there than you really do. By shading the sky and ground colors you get the impression that you’re looking out a windshield. When you actually look out a windshield you get much more than attitude information so there is a risk that, unconsciously, you’ll perceive the lack of terrain info as lack of terrain.
The Chelton PFD avoids the issue altogether by actually showing synthetic terrain (as well as many other things like obstacles, airfields, etc) right on the PFD.
Your point about more terrain info leading pilots to take more risks is certainly true, but it would argue against VOR’s and ILS’s too (“By God, a pilot would think twice about flying into bad weather with just an “A/N” range to work with!”).
In reply to:
I agree with Jim completely.
Good guys, VFR and IFR, Cirrus, and others, keep flying into terrain.
We have GPS, and the computer power to provide an integrated, fool-proof solution.
Those on the forum know that I rarely get this agitated, but that is the dumbest thing I have heard recently.
I don’t know about you, but my SR22 is NOT, an “integrated fool proof solutoin”
There is no such thing.
AND, BTW, there is a solution to flying into terrain.
Simply . . . don’t
Learn how to be a good pilot or don’t fly.
Learn how to read maps or don’t go anywhere but around the pattern.
Learn how to use your judgment, or stay at home.
BTW; I don’t believe we will ever have a fool proof system.
I think Dennis actually makes the point better than I do, in my other comment below. I completely share his agitation (and frustration) with the notion that these accidents are attributable to anything other than poor piloting.
Poor piloting is undoubtedly the cause of this accident. But accident investigations often find factors that, while not the proximate cause of the accident, contribute to it. Many improvements have been made as a result of these findings and safety is improved as a result.
To say that the pilot is the only cause of an accident precludes finding ways to help that pilot avoid one in the future. It’s like saying that medication errors are always the fault of the nurse or doctor: “If they’d paid more attention it wouldn’t have happened!” True, but does that mean we shouldn’t make labels more readable? I doubt it.
It has been suggested, not yet mandated, that Chelton and other future SVS/Terrain display type systems, remove all terrain display data if the aircraft is far off a published IFR procedure, below the MVA or not squawking 7700. This would only provide absolute terrain information in the case of an emergency. This was brought about by many human factor studies that show that a pilot may be tempted to use the technology to bust mins or scud run. The accuracy of the SVS display can only be absolutely trusted when coupled with a published, surveyed IFR segment.
If this was a case of VMC into IMC conditions, low in dangerous terrain, future displays may not help. Pilots may be our own worst enemy.
Charlie Cope
N501NA SN12
What human factor causes pilots to descend below minimum altitude. Short of the plane flying itself, I cannot imagine blaming this on an instrument interface problem!
I’m sorry I’m having so much trouble explaining myself. How’s this for a hypothetical? Let’s say that the MOCA’s on IFR charts were more likely to be misread when written in Times Roman font than Arial. No one would ever say that a pilot’s descent below MOCA was caused by the font choice, but why not use a more readable font and minimize the chance of misreading it?
Here’s another try. It seems that a lot of Cirrus’s are involved in CFIT accidents; maybe no more than other aircraft (I don’t know) but you’d think their advanced avionics would make such accidents less likely. So doesn’t it make sense to ask why? Isn’t there a chance that some improvements could be made?
CFIT will never be eliminated as long there are fallible pilots, but does that mean we should be so fatalistic about it as to not seek improvement where we can?
In reply to:
I’m sorry I’m having so much trouble explaining myself. How’s this for a hypothetical? Let’s say that the MOCA’s on IFR charts were more likely to be misread when written in Times Roman font than Arial. No one would ever say that a pilot’s descent below MOCA was caused by the font choice, but why not use a more readable font and minimize the chance of misreading it?
Here’s another try. It seems that a lot of Cirrus’s are involved in CFIT accidents; maybe no more than other aircraft (I don’t know) but you’d think their advanced avionics would make such accidents less likely. So doesn’t it make sense to ask why? Isn’t there a chance that some improvements could be made?
CFIT will never be eliminated as long there are fallible pilots, but does that mean we should be so fatalistic about it as to not seek improvement where we can?
JM;
Your’e not gettin it.
Contrary to your view, advanced technology tends to “cause” accidents.
IF it is placed in the hands of unskilled persons.
If there is a problem with modern aircraft, that’s it.
To much technology . . . not enough skill.
Many have more money that sense, skill and/or training, and lets not forget judgment.
So the answer is that I think you are missing the point. You can do disclaimers, create technology, invent safety devices, but it won’t replace fundamentals.
Learn to fly right and it doesn’t matter what the technology is. You will be safe as long as you apply judgment to the technology available.
In reply to:
Your’e not gettin it.
Perhaps not, but more likely we’re just talking past each other. You think I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill, and I think you’re being too fatalistic. Anyway, I’m repeating my arguments so it’s probably time to stop.
Intriguing dialog, especially from my stand point of being a non-IFR pilot with only about 100 total hours and who unfortunately hasn’t flown in a couple of years.
With that said, I’d like to offer an example where fairly simple technology (from both “how the end user engages it” and “what it does”) seemed to make those with the technology more prone to accidents.
Last Wednesday in Raleigh, NC (where I live) we had some snow which melted and then turned into ICE. When all was said and done there were nearly 1000 reported accidents and they estimated there were AT LEAST 500 additional non-reported accidents.
Stupid me got in my car an attempted to visit a client. (A poor decision on my part but I figured I could make it). Fortunately my front wheel drive vehicle DID allow me to get back home without incidence.
What kind of vehicles did I see slipping and sliding all over the place and littering the side of the roads? Trucks and SUVs that had 4 wheel drive technology.
See, some people here in eastern NC seem to think that if they have 4 wheel drive vehicles, they are immune to the perils of ICE (hopefully those who found out they were wrong, will remember next time we have an ice storm). Unfortunately, when ALL 4 wheels are on a sheet of ice, 4 wheel drive does you no good.
So to relate my story the point I think Dennis and others were making. The technology used to in “engage” 4 wheel drive is usually either a “bar” that you pull or a “button” you push. The technology to make all 4 wheels spin at once (gears) has been around at least as long as the watch has been around.
Here was the unfortunate equation this past Wednesday:
A relatively simple technology + poor “human factors between the ears” = Accident
When you boil it all down the most important technology we ALL use everyday (in every aspect of our lives) is what I call “the decision tree of questions and answers”. We ask ourselves questions and make decisions based on the answers we give ourselves.
I only hope the next time we have an ice storm here in NC, my answer is a “smarter” answer than it was this past Wednesday.
Brian