Most of us are familiar with the "American style" artificial horizon - the sort where the little aeroplane picture stays still and the horizon moves around. But who's seen the "Russian style" AH, which has a stationary horizon and moveable aircraft?
Both sorts are widely used, and I don't want to get into any longwinded discussions of which is the superior product, but would like to suggest that some of the keen programmers out there might like consider offering an alternative to the AH designs on most of the ground stations around the place. Why?
Well, the original AH's were built to serve pilots sitting in an aircraft and unable to see the horizon due to clouds, rain or darkness. Furthermore, they are mostly intended for slow reacting aircraft in mostly level flight, and the gizmo had to fit into an already crowded instrument panel.
We might have the lack of viz, but the last two most definitely don't apply. Plus there are considerable advantages to a different paradigm - have a look at the diagram and see if you can (quickly) decide which way to move the controls just by looking at the AH on the left.
I don't necessarily like the suggested new style (I think it needs an aircraft picture plus attitude and bank angles), but I think something like it might be a good alternative for the ground based pilot. Perhaps a cross between synthetic vision and a flight sim.
Opinions, anyone?
Replies
I completely agree. I'm a VFR pilot with several hours IFR and I still occasionally have to think twice about recovery control input. I would love to see more flexibility in the HUD graphics in general. Just adding an airplane instead of the "seagull" would be a big step in the right direction.
Steven