[Ironflight]

I had a neat opportunity yesterday to fly a developmental simulator out at the Langley Research Center in Hampton (I bet we've got folks on this forum that work there!). This was a 737 with a wide-view HUD on the left side, and a simulated Synthetic Vision System that projects not only the standard HUD-type data, but a computer generated view of the world as well.

(I think the folks in aircraft operations must have taken pity on me - I have been stuck in meeting after meeting at various NASA centers for the past month, and finally, someone gave me something to fly! What a breath of fresh air....and a good way to keep me happy! )

They set me up to fly a fairly complex approach into Reno - I didn't have an approach plate, so can't tell you which one. But I didn't need a plate, because the HUD had a "Highway in the Sky" display, just like my GRT EFIS! Just drvie the plane through the boxes, and it takes you through the procedure, right down to the ground. Any kid who's played a video game could do it. The synthetic vision system made it seem like I was flying in VFR - could see the mountians, nearby terrain, runway environment - all plain as day. I couldn't figure out why my buddy in the right seat (witout the HUD) was making strange gasping noises as we approached the touchdown point! I made a surprisingly good landing and stopped on the runway with a couple thousand feet remaining, at which point the guy demoing the system to me said "OK, now look around the HUD and taxi to the ramp!" I looked without the Synthetic Vision, and could just bairly see the nearest runway light in the dense fog they had simulated in the visuals. Taxi? Forget it - send the Follow-Me Truck!!

What I found most amazing when I thought about it was that with the exception of the Synthetic Vision system, which made the flair and touchdown easy, the rest of the technology that made the approach so simple is sitting in my EFIS in the RV-8 today! Langley is NASA's premier Aeronautics research center, and it appears that the Experimental world is catching up with the absolute state of the art pretty rapidly - if not surpassing it. And I think that is a good thing!

Paul

 

[Bob Axsom]

I guess it's a good thing

No way will that kind of hardware ever get in my airplane along with a lot of older stuff. Would I like to have it - well yes but there is the money, disruption in flying and tearing down of a well designed beautiful airplane that argue against it ever happening. The down side is ATC starts to expect capabilities that do not exist even though the equipment suffix is included in the IFR flight plan. Even worse, one is tempted to comply with clearances that aren't strictly legal to keep the frequencies clear and the big ATC system functioning without a hiccup. Things like accepting a "direct to" in flight routing change to a VOR that is several hundred miles away when the only thing in the aircraft that will facilitate compliance is a VFR only GPS receiver with an out of date database. No I would never do that but the pressure and the temptation are strong on low end operators like me. Alas, even if one were to say, "I'm going to put my plane down for a significant time and pay a huge amount of money to upgrade my system" the development environment and the "here today gone tomorrow development companies" are in such a state of flux that reaching the high end standard is impossible. The manufacturers of all of my avionics, which I bought new while I was building my airplane are now out of business. The future, with single pilot flight control and navigation dependent on pilot reference to glass panels that will go black like the ones I read about on a 767 recently, is not very encouraging either. Ah well, as long as they will let me fly my plane in the system I will deal with the changes on a necessity basis an not complain.

By the way, wouldn't you rather be in Building 30 at JSC flying missions rather than doing Center visits? I read your politically correct response to shuttle flight status but I'll bet PIs are dying waiting for their experiments to be flown.

Bob Axsom

 

[Ironflight]

Yes But....

By the way, wouldn't you rather be in Building 30 at JSC flying missions rather than doing Center visits? I read your politically correct response to shuttle flight status but I'll bet PIs are dying waiting for their experiments to be flown.

Bob Axsom

To quote that old saying, "I'd a lot rather be down here, wishing I was up there, than up there, wishing I was down here...." It's more than political correctness to say that you'll fly when you're ready, and not when outside pressures say that you have to go. I'd give anything to be flying Shuttles on a regular basis - anything but the lives of my good friends on the crew.

Besides, I get to spend a day a week in the control center doing integrated sims, which are so close to reality that you come out sweaty. That keeps the blood going!

Paul

 

[L.Adamson]

I enjoy reading this type of material! I'm ALL for glass panels, synthetic vision, etc., especially when it comes to rising terrain, or even fog conditions at the airport.

Being a moving map GPS fanatic that I am, since the invention for airplanes, I've kept track of many flight into terrain accidents thoughout the mountain west where I live, and throughout the world. It's usually a case of lost "situational awareness", and still happens to commercial, and military pilots, as well as GA.

I believe the benefits will FAR outweigh the possible downsides of these systems. When everything including your mind has gone to he##, and you have a few seconds before hitting terrain, what's better than synthetic terrain vision???

Of course, SO many pilots say they wouldn't get into this position, but I bet the "expired" ones would have said the same thing...

L.Adamson

 

[rv8ch]

Computers in the cockpit

The future, with single pilot flight control and navigation dependent on pilot reference to glass panels that will go black like the ones I read about on a 767 recently, is not very encouraging either.

Sure, computers do fail, but pretty rarely. Many people don't like the idea of computers in moving vehicles, but there are lots of computers in all modern cars, and they are pretty reliable.

When flying there are moments when if the screens go dark it will be very stressful, but those moments are really very rare, even with IFR flight.

I really love flying with GPS, particularly VFR, since it gives me so much more time to look outside. Smart programming and good systems will make flying so much safer than we can do ourselves. I'm very optimistic about the future of "glass" in the cockpit. Of course, I'm biased, since I am a software dude.

 

[Bob Axsom]

It's an age thing with computers

I'm software educated and experienced as well but computers you install today will probably be minimally supported 5 years from now. In the software world things are always changing and it is not a big deal if the company you work for is liberal in giving you anything you ask for etc. In an airplane I would like to think that 10 years from now I could go out and start the bird and fly with confidence in my maintainable basic systems. In flying as with computer systems there comes a point where you consider yourself an expert but you cannot even take a sectional chart and plan a flight or write an application program in a high level language. I'm not immune from selling my soul to the devil that way either but am very aware of the degradation of basic skills associated with the sale.

Bob Axsom

 

[gvgoff99]

The Devel didn't make you do it! You're smarter than him!

I'm not immune from selling my soul to the devil that way either but am very aware of the degradation of basic skills associated with the sale.

Bob, I really wonder if the "basic skills" of going from point "A" to "B" using a sectional, MK6B circular computer, wind drift, etc. are as important as learning how to use the electronic computer stuff we now have available. If a person is going cross country, knowing how to use a GPS is pretty important. With all of the Class B, TFR's etc I believe the future holds the need for "basic skills" in knowing how to navigate with some sort of electronic aid.

A good argument for this is the AOPA write up on the two poor souls that bumbled into the DC ADIZ. If they just had a GPS and knew how to use it! I am an "old guy" CFI and really do not care that we have lost the technology on how to build the Pyramids in Egypt or that my students are not experts in using a MK6B. The point being that we can loose technology and still progress. Technology is constantly being lost as a result of finding a better way to do it. The ?basic skills? of flying are grounded in flying safely IMO they are not grounded in a right of passage founded in some dogma based on ?this is how I did it and that is how everyone needs to do it to be a good pilot.? I think your soul is in good shape and that it is OK for you to experience the convenience of progress without feeling guilty!

 

[Captain_John]

Well said George!

I doubt people were nay saying Doolittle back in the days of the early flight instrument implementation.

This is just the next generation.

Paul, it is great that this stuff is finding it's way into our planes. Syn vision and HITS is just the tip of the iceberg. In our experimental world, we can swap it out on an annual basis if we choose!

...or install a set of steam gauges.

Either way, an instrument is an instrument... is an instrument. I am a pilot and can fly them both.

CJ