the famous 500$ button… 
Well I fell into the trap for young players tonight….forgot to change from GPS to VLOC on the 430W….and flew through the localizer….
Exactly my point, alioth, but better worded. Thanks!
user experience design
This is IMHO where it all went wrong – it became “User experience”.
I don’t want an experience from my operating system or avionics. I want the user interface to melt into the background so it doesn’t give me an experience. Since I’ve never done IFR with anything remotely modern, I don’t know what the user interfaces are like on the modern stuff, but in the computing world ever since Microsoft started rabbiting on about “user experience” their operating system has always been trying to shout “Hi I’m here I’m Windows look at meeeeee transparency effects! Look at transparency effects!!! You have unused icons!!” (and worst of all, putting up unsolicited popups that steal focus). I don’t care. I want the UI to just melt into the background and not constantly be reminding me that I’m using Windows™. I just hope avionics hasn’t gone down the same route of constantly trying to give me a “user experience”. I hope instead they follow Shneiderman’s 8 golden rules of UI design and try to melt into the background.
During my summer in Europe with the Jetprop a few years ago, I got a couple of very tidy directs from Cane almost to Toulouse courtesy of some delightful French controllers. Both times at FL270. “Cleared direct… bonjour” and that was that. I also had some lengthy ones from the Spanish en-route Jerez to Madrid.
I think FL250-280 is relatively quiet on the airways compared to the higher jet levels, and open to much greater discretion by the controllers.
Regarding the usability of GA avionics with respect to interface, in my opinion coming also from a software background, one can initially regard it as quite backward compared to the rich interfaces most people now interact with in their daily lives, but having now sat behind various architectures I have come to appreciate that less is more in terms of information overload to get the job done.
When you fly a lot, and here is the rub, your situational awareness and ability to quickly assimilate the information from even the most basic instrumentation is almost subconscious, similar to glancing at a watch without really thinking about it. I feel that modern glass generates a lot of information overload that has to be really concentrated on to understand it.
I can readily see that if you fly seldom it can be viewed as a useful crutch, but it really is no substitute for being in command of the flight and ahead of the aircraft rather than relying on George to do it for you.
The second point I would like to make, is matching the avionics with the flight environment. Out here in Asia, we still have to give position reports relative to VOR radials and DME’s, and most ATIS are broadcast on the NDB channel. The GNS530 is perfect in this environment, since it gives prominence to VOR information. The bigger glass, and recent GTN’s and IFD540 no longer show it, or it is so far buried away to be useless.
Where the user interfaces fall over, is their rigidity about configuration. If pilots were allowed to lay their own screens out, within reason, we could adapt a lot more functionality out of existing technology without having to compromise so much.
E
Above FL250 it seems easier. I have had direct from UK to near Berlin c.400nm. But that was at FL270. Once you are talking to Maastricht they seem to always want to give big directs. The other way I often get direct Germany to the Belgian coast.
You won’t get a US-style 500nm DCT routing anywhere in Europe, except in unusual cases or at jet altitudes.
The ATC coordination just isn’t there. Also they don’t like doing DCTs which clip a piece of another country (may be a sub FL250 issue).
I’ve had 150nm DCTs or maybe longer but only within one country.
There are significant benefits in being able to do FL200 because that gets you above stuff like the huge Paris TMA. I can do FL200 in the TB20 but not in ISA+10 or so so I don’t bother with it unless it is needed to stay above enroute wx and anyway I have burnt off loads of fuel by then.
The lack of traffic (yes FL100-280 or so is virtually empty) is nothing to do with the way Europe works. It is all about national and inter-national politics, which transfers into ATC coordination (or lack of).
I suggest you download FPP and play with it. You will soon get the idea.
The higher you go the better in Europe for direct routings. Yes above 280 you need to be RVSM.
I’m just thinking ahead if I ever take the Aerostar to Europe, would I be more likely to get a direct routing if I file FL250, rather than FL160? Seems to me the segment above mandatory oxygen altitude and below the jet cruising speeds should be pretty empty. Are there RSVM requirements above FL280 like in the US?
above what altitudes do the routings get more direct in Europe?
There is no simple answer to that one.
You can fly anywhere at/above FL130 or so – except the Alps etc obviously where the MEAs are higher if you go across the middle, and some rare places where there is an inexplicable ban below say FL200. So I always autoroute for FL140-160 and file that, and stop climb if it’s a nice day at say FL100-110.
Below 130 that you start hitting various issues e.g. Frankfurt crossing is FL120/130 min (IIRC) and the alternative is a big dogleg.
Below FL110 you start hitting a lot of military airspace but that comment is strongly country dependent.
The lowest Eurocontrol levels (all are in CAS) are around FL070 and France is a very clean example with its FL065-base Class E. There may be contrived cases where you can do it lower, but it is open to mis-interpretation of your intentions to really fly IFR.
I suggest you skim-read this. Not fully up to date but you will get the drift.
