Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

The influence of good Avionics user interface on Single Pilot IFR

I just posted this on COPA. As it might be of interest here as well and, when looking closer, is not really restricted to Cirrus aircraft, I thought I might post it here as well:

My background is in software development and I’ve always been interested in user experience design. Design is how it looks like and how it works. People can be trained to operate a complicated machine but the more complicated it is, the more opportunities for mistakes do exist. My opinion is that we should always strive to design machines that support a human activity and not train humans to operate the complicated machine. Even in the book “The Inmates Are Running The Asylum” Alan Cooper mentions an aviation accident caused by a non-forgiving user experience. An American Airlines flight crashed because the FMS allowed the pilot to enter a waypoint that was far away and beyond a mountain from the aircraft’s present position.

As I’m about to purchase my first own aircraft and am training for the instrument rating, I am comparing Avidyne R9 and Garmin Perspective from a UX point of view. Although it is likely that I will fly a lot of hours, I’m not after any career in aviation. Mastery of the machine is not my goal. The aircraft is merely a personal transportation device. Although I enjoy flying, actually quite a lot, the use of the aircraft is to go places. It is the business at the destination what is important, not the way to the place.

The training aircraft on which I do the instrument rating is an SR20 with the old Avidyne PFD/MFD and GNS430. I have the simulators for Avidyne R9 and Garmin Perspective. My current impression is that the Garmin system is complicated and requires more training. There is even a nested menu structure to navigate through with a “back” button to return to the prior level. I perceive those little windows that can appear distracting. All in all it appears to me like the typical computer program that is very rich with features but those features are not presented in a coherent way.

The reason for this post is to ask all of you who have practical experience in flying single pilot IFR for their impression, opinion, preference and why do you lean towards one system or the other.

If possible, I would like to keep our conversation focused on the question of how good these systems support a single pilot flying IFR, probably in demanding weather, instead of comparing technical features and capabilities of those systems. I believe that the UX of the avionics can have a huge influence on the outcome of an IFR flight in IMC for a non-professional pilot who is not being trained constantly by an organization like an airline.

Frequent travels around Europe

Both get the job done. If it’s your own aircraft, the usability advantages of one will disappear shortly after you’ve familiarized yourself with the airplane. Having a keyboard is a great usability advantage but other than that, I’d not limit my choice to one of them because of R9 or G1000. The most important thing in an IFR cockpit is the autopilot and its integration because you operate a system, you do not fly by hand 99% of the time. G1000 Perspective with GFC700 is the best you can get today but R9 with DFC90 is also very well integrated. GFC700/DFC90 versus S-TEC 55x would be more important to me than R9 vs G1000.

The biggest usability nightmare invented by mankind is the Garmin GNS430/530 and yet we manage. OK, only 5 pilots in Europe know what the “OBS” button does but one can live without that

Last Edited by achimha at 02 Feb 12:08

While it’s clear that Perspective/DFC700 is the technologically most advanced, if I had the choice I would go for R9/DFC100 – simply because i like the design better and I also think it’s MUCH easier to use for a PRIVATE (!) pilot who doesn’t fly all the time.

I am one of the 5. It’s been only 1 month now that I use OBS … but it’s so cool for holdings or finding the final approach of some unknown VFR airport :-)
Its even COOLER on the Aviydne PFD!

The biggest usability nightmare invented by mankind is the Garmin GNS430/530…

I think you haven’t been around yet (in the world of IFR flying I mean) when this thing was introduced in the mid 1990s. Compared to the products of the competition (Trimble and especially the most awful of them all, the King KLN 90) this came as a gift from heaven. Personally, for flying single pilot IFR a GNS 430 is really all I need. And I never bother to enter the route (flight plan as they call it) because apart from the beginning of the SID and the approach one only flies direct-to waypoints anyway.

Regarding the original question: whatever system you use, know where the “declutter” button is (with the Garmin units it’s the “CLR” button). We humans have a very limited capacity for taking in and processing information and the less of it you see, the more you will make of it. Just look at an airliner’s screens if you want to know what I mean: Basic flying instruments on the PFD, course line with the next five waypoints on the navigation display. Weather radar if necessary, traffic in congested areas. Nothing else. No map, no airspaces, all unnecessary and distracting information when flying IFR.

EDDS - Stuttgart

I might be stating the obvious, but many people, when stating how easy the Avidyne setup, and how difficult the Garmin setup is, forget to factor in the complexity of the GNS430 on the Avidyne setup.

It’s simply a different kind of architecture. With the Avidyne, the brain of the system is still in the external GNS box, whereas on the Garmin, it’s integrated into the screen.

Pilots totally new to advanced avionics will probably learn to get along fine with both.

If one already has mastered the secrets of the GNS, then the Avidyne setup is obviously easier. I guess that is your case.

However since you intend to buy an aircraft and fly it a lot, you will probably learn any system quickly.

I would personally focus more on the endless arguments “turbo” and “anti-ice/FIKI” debates. Particularly since you are looking for a high dispatch rate.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 02 Feb 13:23
Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

I think all the user interfaces are all horrible compared to what is obviously possible, but you get used to that – if you have an “IT brain” which unfortunately not everybody has and that is possibly why the IFR community has such a high representation of computer whizkids.

What is totally unforgivable is the lack of keypads for data entry – except on the most expensive stuff. It is such a cynical omission and is one of the biggest wastes of time in the preflight side of things.

It is possible to hack the crossfill interface for voice entry (Voiceflight) so it must be possible to hack it for a keypad.

I also think the G500/G1000 displays are of poor quality for the money. Not in resolution but in sunlight readability.

And I never bother to enter the route (flight plan as they call it) because apart from the beginning of the SID and the approach one only flies direct-to waypoints anyway.

The problems I see with that are

  • no ETA/ETE
  • no LFOB (landing fuel on board) value
  • nothing to fly if you lose comms
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I think we should be careful with the term “Avidyne”.

There is Avidyne R6 to R8 with GNS430 as the brain of the system. And then there is Avidyne R9, which is a totally different thing and compares to Garmin G1000.

My question is about Avidyne R9 vs Garmin G1000 in the context of single-pilot IFR and the usability aspects when in challenging situations.

Last Edited by Stephan_Schwab at 02 Feb 13:48
Frequent travels around Europe

And then there is Avidyne R9, which is a totally different thing and compares to Garmin G1000.

No, the Avidyne R9 still has to rely on the GNS430 to do the real work and is therefore just a PFD/MFD unlike the G1000. You will be doing just fine with either system and this is probably one of the least important concerns when shopping used aircraft. For new aircraft, it’s G1000 because there isn’t anything else really.

It is indeed confusing. Coming up with a new name instead of just incrementing the release number would probably have served Avidyne better. :-)

There is no GNS430 or other involved with the R9 as R9 is new hardware and very similar in concept to the G1000. Both are integrated flight decks with no external systems. More here Link

Frequent travels around Europe

That’s correct. NO GNS430 in the R9, very similar to Perspectice/G1000 … and more simple.

61 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top