Glass panels

TangoWhiskey

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
14,210
Location
Midlothian, TX
Display Name

Display name:
3Green
I was reading an article in the Sept 05 IFR, and on page 23 the author says that he wishes the glass panel manufacturers had duplicated the time-proven basic T configuration. Now, I can't say I agree with that statement, but it got me thinking that it would have been relatively simple to have a "reversionary" switch that let you toggle between two different display modes--one that shows the "glass panel airliner" panel, and another that displays your basic six-pack, albeit with digital round gauges.

Wouldn't that be cool!? (I don't know what practical purpose it would serve, but it would be cool!)
 
This is certainly doable, and done routinely in the Motus "almost-simulator" flight training device. The instrument panels are displayed on a computer screen, and then the operator can put on a plastic mask that further advances the illusion. That way, the sim can imitate the panels of a wide variety of airplanes. Ryan Ferguson might be able to chime in more, as I know he has experience tailoring the Motus software.

Putting that capability into a certified unit would be doable, but I wonder if the manufacturers don't think that might just make their units appear a little less "special" and therefore not worth the price premium. Personally, I think it might make some sense in a training environment for transitioning pilots, but there is enough research demonstrating the value of the airliner-style presentation that it makes sense NOT to revert to the classic display for routine use.
 
Right. The advantage of the PFD is that it presents a greater amount of information, with more clarity. I don't think you could cram a 'steam gauge' representation of the Avidyne or G1000 indicators onto the PFD. Remember, in addition to the six-pack we're dealing with multiple pointers/nav sources, moving map, traffic display, TAS, wind barbs, track/heading on the HSI, alt preselect, and many other things which, if represented traditionally, couldn't possibly fit.

I don't think any manufacturer is going to agree that offering multiple fundamental formats of the primary flight display could be a good thing. The six-pack became standard after it became apparent that standardized flight displays were a safety benefit.

I think the author of the article Troy read probably has a historical counterpart who wrote something similar when VORs took over for low-frequency navaids. I wouldn't use the term 'luddite,' but he's simply uncomfortable adapting to modern, improved instrument displays. Many of us are... but whether he likes it or not, this is the direction GA technology is going.
 
Ryan Ferguson said:
Right. The advantage of the PFD is that it presents a greater amount of information, with more clarity. I don't think you could cram a 'steam gauge' representation of the Avidyne or G1000 indicators onto the PFD. Remember, in addition to the six-pack we're dealing with multiple pointers/nav sources, moving map, traffic display, TAS, wind barbs, track/heading on the HSI, alt preselect, and many other things which, if represented traditionally, couldn't possibly fit.

I don't think any manufacturer is going to agree that offering multiple fundamental formats of the primary flight display could be a good thing. The six-pack became standard after it became apparent that standardized flight displays were a safety benefit.

I think the author of the article Troy read probably has a historical counterpart who wrote something similar when VORs took over for low-frequency navaids. I wouldn't use the term 'luddite,' but he's simply uncomfortable adapting to modern, improved instrument displays. Many of us are... but whether he likes it or not, this is the direction GA technology is going.
This is happening because, if you are an aircraft manufacturer, you get 3000 fewer assembly steps, a harness that is a simple as dirt, lighter weight and ultimately lower cost. This is a happening thing, like or not.
 
bbchien said:
This is happening because, if you are an aircraft manufacturer, you get 3000 fewer assembly steps, a harness that is a simple as dirt, lighter weight and ultimately lower cost. This is a happening thing, like or not.

And in the long run, fewer instrument repairs. Not that it will save any money.
 
Back
Top