Silvaire wrote:
I haven’t personally found avionics programming etc to be particularly difficult, but I think the user interfaces are typically designed by incompetents,
That is to say the least. If you take any normal GA avionics box (except RNAV navigators such as the King KNS80) up to around 2000 you could basically understand how to use it simply by looking at the panel. Today even a basic NAVCOM such as the GNC255A (the only real option for a new NAVCOM in Europe today as the Trig TX56 never materialised) needs some instruction to use, Not a lot, but some.
RobertL18C wrote:
Let us recall while the old world Europeans were grappling with fluid dynamics, a couple of bicycle mechanics had the practical common sense to spend hours on their home made wind tunnel and came up with the first aeroplane.
To be fair, the bicycle mechanics made major use of glider flight test data produced by an old world European who was also trained as an engineer.
@Airborne_Again from your source :)
Lilienthal’s research was well known to the Wright brothers, and they credited him as a major inspiration for their decision to pursue manned flight. However, they abandoned his aeronautical data after two seasons of gliding and began using their own wind tunnel data.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Today even a basic NAVCOM such as the GNC255A … needs some instruction to use,
Can you elaborate on that? I never flew with one, but my impression was, that using the basic NavCom functionality is the same as with any other Garmin NavCom since ages.
That is btw. one of the core challenges of usability of such devices – but a conscious choice: The idea is, that if one uses only the most basic functionality (tuning in a frequency, switching frequencies, etc.) the operation is exactly the same as with the 50 years old KX-175.
That makes operations easy for older pilots, however, but also takes a lot of the scarce front pane real estate for better operation of advanced functions.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Can you elaborate on that? I never flew with one, but my impression was, that using the basic NavCom functionality is the same as with any other Garmin NavCom since ages.That is btw. one of the core challenges of usability of such devices – but a conscious choice: The idea is, that if one uses only the most basic functionality (tuning in a frequency, switching frequencies, etc.) the operation is exactly the same as with the 50 years old KX-175.
The GNC255A has a common frequency display for NAV and COM and common frequency knobs. Normally, it shows COM frequencies and you set COM frequencies. To get NAV frequencies, you have to push a button. If you’ve only used avionics with separate displays and knobs it is not obvious that it has a NAV part at all, and it is also not immediately obvious which of the buttons marked “C/N”, “OBS”, “T/F”, “FUNC”, “CLR” and “ENT” you are supposed to push. As I wrote, it certainly does not require a lot of instruction, but it does require some.
The TX56 displays both COM and NAV frequencies. It does only have one set of frequency knobs, but the buttons are marked “MON”, “COM”, “NAV”, “T/F”, “MEM” and “OBS”.
Judging from the boxes I’ve seen, Trig’s user interface design is generally superior to Garmin’s.
Here is some appropriate education for the most challenging type of commercial flying. Good for anybody to watch, probably not good for most pilots to practice in “the working environment”.
I fixed it… thanks for your patience!
Silvaire wrote:
I fixed it… thanks for your patience!
Thanks!
BTW if it isn’t obvious, I believe the background for this (1980s?) video is that duster pilots used to make uncoordinated rudder turns, which was I suppose an artifact of old planes (e.g, Stearmans) needing a lot of rudder to make even a coordinated turn and because their intent was to make their 180 turns quickly with a hammerhead style maneuver. Wayne Handley was a respected display pilot and ex-ag pilot trying to convert them to flying coordinated turns, to reduce fatal accidents that occurred after inverted spins to the ground.
Useful education for professional pilots 
