Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Starlionblue wrote:Cockpits are marvels of simplicity compared to 50 years ago.
The big changes have been:
- Glass instrumentation. No longer does every reading need its own instrument.
- Routing warnings and procedures through systems like EICAS and ECAM.
For normal operation, things are very streamlined. Sure, the overhead panel is still full of buttons and switches, but that's for redundancy. Those buttons and switches are hard wired to the system, meaning they work even if the centralised EICAS/ECAM does not.
Layouts overall are pretty logical nowadays. Once you've worked with it for a while, it's very intuitive. It only looks super-complex in the beginning.
Dalmd88 wrote:Touch screens is a hard no for me. I hate them in my car. Nice part of an airplane flight deck is tactile feel.
rjsampson wrote:Dalmd88 wrote:Touch screens is a hard no for me. I hate them in my car. Nice part of an airplane flight deck is tactile feel.
xl0hr wrote:I lately wondered about checklists and flows. I feel like if you're doing a standard start-up and take-off your aircraft could flick most of the switches for you. That would reduce the need for standard-case check lists, too. ECAM/EICAS go some way there... Otoh I'm not a pilot.
Plus i think most of ATC communication and implementation of commands could be automated. If you text your clearances/routings/etc the auto pilot could directly implement them. (Would that make pilot flying merely a pilot monitoring? And would that be single pilot cruise? )
xl0hr wrote:I lately wondered about checklists and flows. I feel like if you're doing a standard start-up and take-off your aircraft could flick most of the switches for you. That would reduce the need for standard-case check lists, too. ECAM/EICAS go some way there... Otoh I'm not a pilot.
Plus i think most of ATC communication and implementation of commands could be automated. If you text your clearances/routings/etc the auto pilot could directly implement them. (Would that make pilot flying merely a pilot monitoring? And would that be single pilot cruise? )
Starlionblue wrote:The first bit has already been gradually happening for decades.
Starlionblue wrote:I'm not a fan of direct autoflight implementation of datalink clearances. It removes a rather significant safety net. An intermediate step, which is already happening, is automatic entry of received parameters. For example, if you get a new radio frequency via datalink on the A350, you can automatically populate that frequency into the standby position on the radio.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:No, it’s not that simple.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:ensuring it was actually done are all human inputs.
xl0hr wrote:Starlionblue wrote:The first bit has already been gradually happening for decades.
Very interesting, thanks!Starlionblue wrote:I'm not a fan of direct autoflight implementation of datalink clearances. It removes a rather significant safety net. An intermediate step, which is already happening, is automatic entry of received parameters. For example, if you get a new radio frequency via datalink on the A350, you can automatically populate that frequency into the standby position on the radio.
Also very interesting! So a new FL or a direct could be pre-entered by the aircraft and the PF accepts the changes which is when the aircraft confirms to ATC? That seems pretty close to how I understand the LH procedure where the PM reads back to ATC what she sees on PFD as a second safety layer?
Automating this would also reduce the potential of mistakes as there are fewer machine-person interactions and fewer nodes in communication.
Starlionblue wrote:xl0hr wrote:Starlionblue wrote:The first bit has already been gradually happening for decades.
Very interesting, thanks!Starlionblue wrote:I'm not a fan of direct autoflight implementation of datalink clearances. It removes a rather significant safety net. An intermediate step, which is already happening, is automatic entry of received parameters. For example, if you get a new radio frequency via datalink on the A350, you can automatically populate that frequency into the standby position on the radio.
Also very interesting! So a new FL or a direct could be pre-entered by the aircraft and the PF accepts the changes which is when the aircraft confirms to ATC? That seems pretty close to how I understand the LH procedure where the PM reads back to ATC what she sees on PFD as a second safety layer?
Automating this would also reduce the potential of mistakes as there are fewer machine-person interactions and fewer nodes in communication.
Not sure about the LH procedure, but certainly reading off the PFD is always important. The PFD tells you what the plane is doing. The input device (MCP/ACP/FCU) only tells you what you've told the plane to do. "Fact" vs "rumour" as the saying goes.
I think we will gradually see more automation around the input received parameters, e.g. you receive a new FL via datalink, and this can automatically be fed to autoflight. But implementation will not be automatic for now.
IMHO any change in flight path from "outside" should be vetted. It doesn't take that long and more importantly, there are safety considerations. Any altitude/FL change requires extra care. Hence why we are required to confirm with the PM before actioning, and not just do it and get confirmation subsequently like with heading changes.