Hello,
I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
"speed at 3 o’clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
same? Am I missing a particular technique?
Arno
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:21:27 -0000, Arno <ascho…@think-cell.com>
wrote:
>Hello,
>I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
>I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
>am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
>gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
>analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
>"speed at 3 o’clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
>midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>same? Am I missing a particular technique?
I figure it’s a conspiracy to make flying as much like a video game as
possible. Pretty soon, all the pilots over 40 will be eradicated in
mid-airs and CFITs arising from display fixation, and the young’uns
will transition to simulations and never notice that they aren’t
actually flying anywhere — which will be good, because they couldn’t
have afforded the fuel anyway.
These newsgroups will live on, of course.
Don
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:21:27 -0000, Arno <ascho…@think-cell.com>
wrote in <1191684087.071761.188…@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>:
>Hello,
>I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
>I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
>am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
>gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
>analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
>"speed at 3 o’clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
>midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>Arno
Perhaps you should inform Avidyne of your less than satisfactory
experience with the ergonomics of their product. It would be
interesting to see their response. Who knows, you might be able to
motivate them to provide an ‘analog gage’ mode switch on future
versions.
http://www.avidyne.com/contact/contactus.shtm
E-Mail: i…@avidyne.com
Avidyne Comm/Nav/FMS Group
420 N. Wickham Rd.
Melbourne, FL 32935
Phone: 321-751-8520
Fax: 321-751-8435
Avidyne Safety Systems Group
4800 Evanswood Drive
Columbus, OH 43229
Technical Support Phone: 800-877-0048
Technical Support Fax: 614-885-8307
Arno writes:
> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
> "speed at 3 o’clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
It is a matter of habit and personal preference.
Don Tuite writes:
> I figure it’s a conspiracy to make flying as much like a video game as
> possible.
I suppose you are making a joke, but there may be considerable truth in what
you say.
As computers enter many domains in which they had not previously been used,
the "computer mindset" also tends to pollute those domains, since the ergonomy
of computer software is often a function of the preferences of the developers
who build it. I note that glass cockpits bear a suspicious resemblance to
PC-based interfaces, a likely sign that the developers knew a lot more about
PCs than they did about cockpit designs. The glass cockpits drift towards an
interface that looks like something you’d see on a laptop computer, rather
than something you’d see in a traditional cockpit. I don’t think this is a
good thing. Indeed, it is one of my objections to glass cockpits, especially
the highly integrated kind often installed in small aircraft (think G1000).
Mxsmanic <mxsma…@gmail.com> wrote in
news:g7jfg3dcocbvpjtipsiecksft43cabjj9a@4ax.com:
> Arno writes:
>> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
>> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
>> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
>> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
>> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
>> "speed at 3 o’clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
>> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
> It is a matter of habit and personal preference.
No, it isn’t, fjukkwit.
This ios almost the dumbest thng you’ve ever said.
bertie
Mxsmanic <mxsma…@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1fjfg3tchr6se7ookaaude8bcqhbev1vbv@4ax.com:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Don Tuite writes:
>> I figure it’s a conspiracy to make flying as much like a video game
>> as possible.
> I suppose you are making a joke, but there may be considerable truth
> in what you say.
> As computers enter many domains in which they had not previously been
> used, the "computer mindset" also tends to pollute those domains,
> since the ergonomy of computer software is often a function of the
> preferences of the developers who build it. I note that glass
> cockpits bear a suspicious resemblance to PC-based interfaces, a
> likely sign that the developers knew a lot more about PCs than they
> did about cockpit designs. The glass cockpits drift towards an
> interface that looks like something you’d see on a laptop computer,
> rather than something you’d see in a traditional cockpit. I don’t
> think this is a good thing. Indeed, it is one of my objections to
> glass cockpits, especially the highly integrated kind often installed
> in small aircraft (think G1000).
How would you know?
You don’t fly and you never will.
bertie
On Oct 6, 10:21 am, Arno <ascho…@think-cell.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
> "speed at 3 o’clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
> Arno
I am a fellow computer geek, and a student pilot. I usually fly a
plane with steam gauges, but a couple of times now I have flown with
digital displays. Like you, I found it a little hard to adjust to the
digital displays. The digital displays I was using presented altitude
and tachometer values simply as numbers. The analog displays I am
used to present these values as positions on a dial, showing the
current value in its context of a spectrum of values. With the analog
displays, I am used to adjusting the position of the pointer. With
the digital display, I need to simply set the correct numerical
value. It’s a little mental adjustment, and given that I am a newbie
to all this it is an extra distraction.
But, I do think that it is mostly a matter of what you are used to.
If you started out working with a digital display, and had to switch
to a steam gauge, I think it would be just as much of an adjustment.
I think that the human brain is a pretty flexible instrument, and I
suspect it wouldn’t take long to get used to setting a numerical value
rather than the position of a needle on a dial. Both are valid
methods of presenting the information. Either way, it is simply a
feedback mechanism you use to make sure the airplane is doing what it
should.
Phil
Phil <pjacob…@comcast.net> wrote in news:1191696116.820241.83540@
19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Oct 6, 10:21 am, Arno <ascho…@think-cell.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
>> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say
I
>> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
>> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading
an
>> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
>> "speed at 3 o’clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
>> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>> Arno
> I am a fellow computer geek, and a student pilot. I usually fly a
> plane with steam gauges, but a couple of times now I have flown with
> digital displays. Like you, I found it a little hard to adjust to the
> digital displays. The digital displays I was using presented altitude
> and tachometer values simply as numbers. The analog displays I am
> used to present these values as positions on a dial, showing the
> current value in its context of a spectrum of values. With the analog
> displays, I am used to adjusting the position of the pointer. With
> the digital display, I need to simply set the correct numerical
> value. It’s a little mental adjustment, and given that I am a newbie
> to all this it is an extra distraction.
> But, I do think that it is mostly a matter of what you are used to.
Flying is a right hand brain activity. At least the handling portion is.
The right hand side of the brain dosn’t do abstractions like numbers, at
least not until the left hand side (which can’t fly worth a shit) sends
it over to the right side in a readily digestable form which enables the
right brain to chew it into a picture.
An analogue display cuts the left hand side out of the loop and enables
the calcualtion rate to increase the right sides "frame rate" so that
corrections can be made more frequently thus enabling the pilot to fly
the airplane more smooothly and with more authority.
Caorse rule of thumb math can be laid over this for descent angles,
interceptin angles and wo on, but generally, the fewer numbers involved,
the better.
People who prefer the numbers usualy don’t fly very well at all.
You don’t do trig while you’re shooting pool and expect to win the game.
Bertie
On Oct 6, 9:21 am, Arno <ascho…@think-cell.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
> "speed at 3 o’clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
> Arno
You’ll get used to it… there is a transition time to go from round
dial to tapes, but once you get used to tapes you will find that they
do have certain advantages. I worked on the 777 EFIS, which used the
tape format, and after several hours in the 777 simulator, the tapes
became as easy to read at a glance as the round dials. It just takes
conditioning your mind to be able to rapidly scan them, and being able
to pick up trend information from the tape motion instead of needle
motion. At least that was my experience.
A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
adapt to them.
Dean
Arno,
> Does anyone feel the
> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
Many reviewers have mentioned this. It seems to be mostly a mater of
training. Also, setting the respective bugs to the desired value seems
to help most pilots.
–
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
In article <Xns99C1C6FFF4085pissuprop…@207.14.116.130>,
Bertie the Bunyip <S…@rt.1> wrote:
> You don’t do trig while you’re shooting pool and expect to win the game.
You’re right, I do geometry. :-))
In article <1191697592.871483.199…@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
dean…@msn.com wrote:
> A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
> with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
> adapt to them.
So do the numbers get bigger or smaller as the tape move down?
john smith <johnsm…@net.net> wrote in
news:4707e83b$0$26393$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
> In article <Xns99C1C6FFF4085pissuprop…@207.14.116.130>,
> Bertie the Bunyip <S…@rt.1> wrote:
>> You don’t do trig while you’re shooting pool and expect to win the
>> game.
> You’re right, I do geometry. :-))
Nobody can do geometry properly with the required alchohol load to play
pool properly
Bertie
<dean…@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1191697592.871483.199180@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Oct 6, 9:21 am, Arno <ascho…@think-cell.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
>> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say I
>> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
>> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading an
>> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
>> "speed at 3 o’clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
>> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>> Arno
> You’ll get used to it… there is a transition time to go from round
> dial to tapes, but once you get used to tapes you will find that they
> do have certain advantages. I worked on the 777 EFIS, which used the
> tape format, and after several hours in the 777 simulator, the tapes
> became as easy to read at a glance as the round dials. It just takes
> conditioning your mind to be able to rapidly scan them, and being able
> to pick up trend information from the tape motion instead of needle
> motion. At least that was my experience.
> A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
> with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
> adapt to them.
> Dean
I have never seen the system for the 777, but I did get a look at the low
end equipment at the LSA Expo in Sebring Florida, and felt that what I saw
was pure crap!
It is certainly possible to make a tape motion system that works well, and I
have seen some "physical" versions that I liked when I was an avionics tech
twenty years ago. However, those have a moving needle which moved in
opposition to the moving tape and at a slower rate than the tape. The
result was that the needle gave the coarse indication, at a glance, and the
tape gave the precise measurement when required–and, in the case of a
higher flying aircraft which would require a three needle altimeter, may
have been more intuitive to read.
However, on the implementations that I have seen, the representations of
needles were fixed and the numbers moved on a virtual card or tape. In my
opinion, they were egregeous!
Peter
"Bertie the Bunyip" <S…@rt.1> wrote in message
news:Xns99C1C6FFF4085pissupropeeh@207.14.116.130…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Phil <pjacob…@comcast.net> wrote in news:1191696116.820241.83540@
> 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>> On Oct 6, 10:21 am, Arno <ascho…@think-cell.com> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology. But
>>> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must say
> I
>>> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>>> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with regular
>>> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading
> an
>>> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture, like
>>> "speed at 3 o’clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes past
>>> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>>> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>>> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>>> Arno
>> I am a fellow computer geek, and a student pilot. I usually fly a
>> plane with steam gauges, but a couple of times now I have flown with
>> digital displays. Like you, I found it a little hard to adjust to the
>> digital displays. The digital displays I was using presented altitude
>> and tachometer values simply as numbers. The analog displays I am
>> used to present these values as positions on a dial, showing the
>> current value in its context of a spectrum of values. With the analog
>> displays, I am used to adjusting the position of the pointer. With
>> the digital display, I need to simply set the correct numerical
>> value. It’s a little mental adjustment, and given that I am a newbie
>> to all this it is an extra distraction.
>> But, I do think that it is mostly a matter of what you are used to.
> Flying is a right hand brain activity. At least the handling portion is.
> The right hand side of the brain dosn’t do abstractions like numbers, at
> least not until the left hand side (which can’t fly worth a shit) sends
> it over to the right side in a readily digestable form which enables the
> right brain to chew it into a picture.
> An analogue display cuts the left hand side out of the loop and enables
> the calcualtion rate to increase the right sides "frame rate" so that
> corrections can be made more frequently thus enabling the pilot to fly
> the airplane more smooothly and with more authority.
> Caorse rule of thumb math can be laid over this for descent angles,
> interceptin angles and wo on, but generally, the fewer numbers involved,
> the better.
> People who prefer the numbers usualy don’t fly very well at all.
> You don’t do trig while you’re shooting pool and expect to win the game.
> Bertie
Very well said!
Peter
> A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
> with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
> adapt to them.
That’s interesting. Do you have any reference of research comparing
various display methods? Tapes for speed and altitude in today’s
cockpits are ubiquitous of course. So far I thought it was a case of
someone starting it and others just copying it.
Arno
"Peter Dohm" <lefty…@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:x1SNi.1432$aa.376
@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Bertie the Bunyip" <S…@rt.1> wrote in message
> news:Xns99C1C6FFF4085pissupropeeh@207.14.116.130…
>> Phil <pjacob…@comcast.net> wrote in news:1191696116.820241.83540@
>> 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>>> On Oct 6, 10:21 am, Arno <ascho…@think-cell.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> I am computer scientist and usually really like fancy technology.
But
>>>> I just had my first flight with a "glass" PFD (Avidyne) and must
say
>> I
>>>> am not impressed. In particular reading altitude and airpeed from
>>>> these scrolling bands requires a lot more attention than with
regular
>>>> gauges, just like reading a digital clock takes longer than reading
>> an
>>>> analog one. Glancing at it and checking against a known picture,
like
>>>> "speed at 3 o’clock is fine on final" or "altitude at 20 minutes
past
>>>> midnight is minimum", just does not work anymore, instead I end up
>>>> reading the actual numbers every time I look. Does anyone feel the
>>>> same? Am I missing a particular technique?
>>>> Arno
>>> I am a fellow computer geek, and a student pilot. I usually fly a
>>> plane with steam gauges, but a couple of times now I have flown with
>>> digital displays. Like you, I found it a little hard to adjust to
the
>>> digital displays. The digital displays I was using presented
altitude
>>> and tachometer values simply as numbers. The analog displays I am
>>> used to present these values as positions on a dial, showing the
>>> current value in its context of a spectrum of values. With the
analog
>>> displays, I am used to adjusting the position of the pointer. With
>>> the digital display, I need to simply set the correct numerical
>>> value. It’s a little mental adjustment, and given that I am a
newbie
>>> to all this it is an extra distraction.
>>> But, I do think that it is mostly a matter of what you are used to.
>> Flying is a right hand brain activity. At least the handling portion
is.
>> The right hand side of the brain dosn’t do abstractions like numbers,
at
>> least not until the left hand side (which can’t fly worth a shit)
sends
>> it over to the right side in a readily digestable form which enables
the
>> right brain to chew it into a picture.
>> An analogue display cuts the left hand side out of the loop and
enables
>> the calcualtion rate to increase the right sides "frame rate" so that
>> corrections can be made more frequently thus enabling the pilot to
fly
>> the airplane more smooothly and with more authority.
>> Caorse rule of thumb math can be laid over this for descent angles,
>> interceptin angles and wo on, but generally, the fewer numbers
involved,
>> the better.
>> People who prefer the numbers usualy don’t fly very well at all.
>> You don’t do trig while you’re shooting pool and expect to win the
game.
>> Bertie
> Very well said!
Thenkew
Bertie
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Dean,
I just noticed something interesting, looking at pictures of recent
Boeing and Airbus PFDs. For altitude, they are both pretty much the
same, but for the speed tape, Airbus does not have a big number at the
center of the tape but instead the number on top of the tape and just
a thin line at the center. After my experience today I like the Airbus
better because it is less conducive to reading the numbers rather than
"get the picture":
Airbus A340:
http://simflight.nl/users/reviews/CLS/A340-600/Screenshots/PFD.jpg
Boeing 777:
http://www.meriweather.com/777/fwd/pfd.html
Arno
<dean…@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1191697592.871483.199180@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com…
…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> You’ll get used to it… there is a transition time to go from round
> dial to tapes, but once you get used to tapes you will find that they
> do have certain advantages. I worked on the 777 EFIS, which used the
> tape format, and after several hours in the 777 simulator, the tapes
> became as easy to read at a glance as the round dials. It just takes
> conditioning your mind to be able to rapidly scan them, and being able
> to pick up trend information from the tape motion instead of needle
> motion. At least that was my experience.
> A lot of human factors work went into the tape formats, and it was
> with the understanding that training would be required for pilots to
> adapt to them.
> Dean
Hey Dean, the tape systems I’ve seen have the scale fixed on the display and
the tape that moves up and down the scale appropriately. That is not how the
Garmin system works from what I’ve seen. The G1000 in the local 182 actually
moves the scale in relation to a fixed pointer that is mid-scale on the
display, so you have to read numbers relative to a pointer instead of
judging a tape marker relative to a fixed scale. This is much more difficult
than the old fixed scale displays, but I don’t see how they could cram as
much on the screen as they do if they still used fixed scale depictions.
Those old instruments used the barberpole concept very well and went right
along with the round gages for system monitoring where we would rotate the
gauges in the panel such that "normal" had all needles pointing the same
direction; no interpretation needed unless one of the needles wasn’t
pointing like the rest.
In some ways technology has made the panel much less intuitive and more time
consuming. Think about traffic signals – Red means stop, but we could have
just as easily put up a digital display that said "Cross traffic beginning".
Which would be easier for the driver to interpret most quickly?
–
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
To all:
Please be aware the Anthony Atkielski (mxsmanic) is not a pilot, and has
never held an aviation medical. In fact he has never even taken a lesson,
let alone fly in a small plane.
He certainly has never flown with or operated a G-1000 or anything remotely
similar.
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
> An analogue display cuts the left hand side out of the loop and enables
> the calcualtion rate to increase the right sides "frame rate" so that
> corrections can be made more frequently thus enabling the pilot to fly
> the airplane more smooothly and with more authority.
> Caorse rule of thumb math can be laid over this for descent angles,
> interceptin angles and wo on, but generally, the fewer numbers involved,
> the better.
> People who prefer the numbers usualy don’t fly very well at all.
Bless you, my boy.
I thought the reason I hated the tapes was that I’m just an old fogie. Now I
know it’s because I’m a natural!
Most gratifying news.
–
Dan
T-182T at BFM
"Dan Luke" <t1…@dingdongsouth.net> wrote in
news:13gg1ageqjfqbe0@news.supernews.com:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>> An analogue display cuts the left hand side out of the loop and
>> enables the calcualtion rate to increase the right sides "frame rate"
>> so that corrections can be made more frequently thus enabling the
>> pilot to fly the airplane more smooothly and with more authority.
>> Caorse rule of thumb math can be laid over this for descent angles,
>> interceptin angles and wo on, but generally, the fewer numbers
>> involved, the better.
>> People who prefer the numbers usualy don’t fly very well at all.
> Bless you, my boy.
> I thought the reason I hated the tapes was that I’m just an old fogie.
> Now I know it’s because I’m a natural!
‘xactly.
‘ve had a speed tape in front of me for years now and I still look right
past it to the ASI. It does have a useful function in that it flashes if I
get more than a few knots away from bug speed whilst hand flying, but
intuitive use of the ASI needle is al I have found I’d ever need.
> Most gratifying news.
That’s why the name Berite the Bunyip is a byword for service.
Bertie
On Oct 6, 2:35 pm, Arno <ascho…@think-cell.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Dean,
> I just noticed something interesting, looking at pictures of recent
> Boeing and Airbus PFDs. For altitude, they are both pretty much the
> same, but for the speed tape, Airbus does not have a big number at the
> center of the tape but instead the number on top of the tape and just
> a thin line at the center. After my experience today I like the Airbus
> better because it is less conducive to reading the numbers rather than
> "get the picture":
> Airbus A340:
> http://simflight.nl/users/reviews/CLS/A340-600/Screenshots/PFD.jpg
> Boeing 777:
> http://www.meriweather.com/777/fwd/pfd.html
> Arno
Take a look at the speed tape on the 777. The tape itself gives you
the course rate of change, while the window gives you the fine
resolution changes with the 1′s place on the airspace as a sliding
digit. The Airbus doesn’t give you that.