The FAA is looking for help in determining how modern tech in aircraft flight decks should look, feel, and operate. The agency has issued a proposed advisory circular that “provides guidance for the installation and airworthiness approval of flightdeck system controls, primarily from a human factors (HF) perspective.” But the agency isn’t convinced it got everything right and is inviting comments on how to improve the AC. The new document will replace one issued in 2011, and the agency says a lot has changed in cockpits since then. It covers avionics controls ranging from traditional knobs and switches to the full range of screen functions from touchscreen to cursor- and menu-based systems.
It starts with the basics, telling manufacturers to take into account the size and shape of pilots along with the full range of flight experience they may have. It also tells them to consider lighting, turbulence, and even the use of gloves for those cold winter mornings. The final document will form the outline for certification evaluation of equipment for flight decks but it is a “guidance document” and therefore not legally binding in the myriad steps that companies go through to get their gear approved.
My favorite modern scourge…instrumentation designers who puke crayola color all over displays because they can.
Color has a place when it relays information, but becomes clutter if over used…is there a need for red parameter limits, green normal range during normal ops? Red=bad, doesn’t add value to see it on display if all good.
How about monochrome parameter display (“needle”, range, digits) when parameter is good, that parameter goes red if out of limits and goes yellow if out of normal trend…then a quick glance tells something is off without having to look at every parameter display individually…and clock all the normal ranges across all parameter displays to same orientation.
What you describe is called “human factors engineering”. We did it in the 70s but, looking at all modern displays, it seems to have been forgotten.
…exactly, maybe in the sales pitch human factors can resurface as a profitable single feature instead of a multitude of clunky “features” (air quotes intended).
Did it in the 70’s?
Switch for he nav lights was just the same as the strobe lights just the same as the landing light just the same as the taxi light, just the same as the pitot heat just the same as beacon light. Radio rheo the same as the panel rheo. Rando suction gauge here, engine gauges way over there, carb temp gauge you’re not going to see inflight unless you crane your neck and put your head and on the passenger’s lap. CHT right next to the fuel right next to the AMPs
Human factors indeed.
The comments form at the end has no contact information. where do we send our comments?
FAA has a website that lists documents open for comment. This site is specifically for AIR documents: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/ac. Scroll down from the top of this website to find AC 20-175A. To provide comments, reply to 9-AVS-TechWriters@faa.gov. Snail-mail reply address is:
Chris Grom
FAA Southwest Regional Office / Central Service Center
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, Texas 76177
Comments are due by September 24.
As Russ mentioned above, this revision is updating the original AC of 2011, so when the final revision A is published, the revision drafters will most likely have included, at the end of the document, an organization or person to which to send corrections or suggestions.
I hate the dependence upon compliance and conformance to federal standards to a plethora of SAE, IEEE, et. al. standards (as above SAE Aerospace Standard (ARP)
4102/7, Electronic Displays, it offered at $108 per copy) costing upward $100 each, a fee for each copy of each standard, putting them entirely out of reach of any but the most well heeled individuals and corporations. That annoyance aside high document cost is also a barrier to innovation with solutions and mitigations are thus made difficult to formulate without reference to relevant documents.
I wonder who though having touch screen functions in an airplane instrument panel is a good idea?
BINGO !! Reading the AC reminds me of why I like the ‘old’ 6-pack. I can glance at ’em all and decipher my condition in less than 2 seconds. I don’t have to touch ’em to make things work aside from the radios. What have I gained being overwhelmed by information? Nothing. And it invites single point failure modes, too.
Further, there’s nothing in this AC talking about decluttering. There ought to be a way to either declutter a main screen OR a requirement to display secondary information on a second screen. Looking at the attached screen picture, I have to stare at and then think about what I’m seeing. I’d want flight instruments and other information selectable separate.
I can take a glance of that same screen and not only know my condition, but also the status of my radios, transponder and engine.
And with a dozen or so different configurations, you can do a lot of decluttering.
And if that just doesn’t fit the bill, check out the GI 275.
It was a long time before I flew anything that didn’t have a single point failure, usually a vacuum pump. I can now have 2 MFDs with their own battery backup and multiple sources. An ISIS or even a multiple with their own battery backup.
Throw in a iPAD and a GPS/NAVCOM handheld radio from Sporty’s, and you’re starting to step into the redundancy and reliability of an Apollo mission.
Having said all that, I do love the straight to the point, no nonsense NDB.
Have you actually flown behind touch-screen avionics?
Yes, it can be a challenge to input some things via touch during turbulence, but it can be a challenge with even traditional input devices as well.
I have had to work with finicky traditional radio flip-flop buttons where the slightest press would cause it to flip-flop unintentionally. I have also had to deal with the opposite, where the button or knob doesn’t respond unless you press it just right.
My point being that there is more to interface design than just “does it use physical input devices”. Whatever input style is used has to be well thought-out and tested in real-world situations.
Yes I have. A Caravan jump plane I occasionly fly skydivers with has a Garmin unit that is touchscreen. I almost always set it up with jump run info while on ground because I am not bouncing around in turbulence which makes it a pain to set while airborne!
At least the Garmin 650/750 allows for a fair number of features to be controlled through the knobs, similar to how the 430/540 did. I feel that as long as the avionics allow for some type of hybrid input, having a touch interface is not necessarily a bad thing.