At the delivery ceremony of the first A350-1000, Airbus mentioned the A350 cockpit will get touch screen monitors in 2018.

Ref https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR/status/965965366097661958

So what are the benefits of touch screens in the cockpit? Can the crew work faster?

Yes been an option on the -900 as well

KarelXWB wrote:

At the delivery ceremony of the first A350-1000, Airbus mentioned the A350 cockpit will get touch screen monitors in 2018.

Ref https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR/status/965965366097661958

So what are the benefits of touch screens in the cockpit? Can the crew work faster?

That depends on the design of the UI (see : Fitt's Law). The UI can make or break the touchscreen experience. Others who have used the Garmin 3000 may differ in opinion, but I think that they did a poor job with the UI. They were helped enormously by the fact that they were one of the first out of the gate, and I'm curious to see what the next wave of touch screens in the flight deck would look like. I've worked on flight deck touch screens for years now, and my most interesting informal observation is that a pilot's receptivity to touch screen interfaces is inversely correlated to their age. The millenials love it, 727 era sky gods hate it.

They're interesting from the airframer's perspective too - fewer buttons and controls, simpler systems, and - if done right - redundancy and reduced part numbers. If you look at the Gulfstream G500/600 cockpits, it is essentially the same touch screen hardware that replaces the MCDU, EFBs, etc. If one fails, you can use reversionary modes to bring up its contents on other displays. At the end of the day, it's a trade with pluses and minuses. The big concern was reliable usability in turbulent conditions, but I think that newer studies are proving that it's not so bad, and the benefits will outweigh the handicaps.

As a software developer I'm hugely wary of using pure touchscreens in an environment where you may want to use the input without looking at them.

Then again I don't know how much an airline pilot would input stuff into one of these MFDs without looking at them. If it turns out that you always look at them and look for the menu option before pushing a button then sure, I could see how they would be a huge improvement. As instead of a set of buttons round the edge you now have the full area of the screen for buttons.

One important thing to consider is use in times when you aren't in nice level flight. Turbulence, emergency, etc. But again, if you'd be looking anyways its probably an acceptable limitation.

One interesting thing to mention is there is a lot of research going into making touchscreens that have a tactile surface that can be changed. So for example you could have the screen put raised bumps for any buttons that get displayed. Then become flat when the button goes away.

Ok when Boeing announced this for the 777X there was a huge swath of obvious Airbus fanboys that were screaming about how stupid the idea was, and how turbulence this and turbulence that. Let's see what they have to say now.

Was there ? because it was already a customer option on the A350 before the 77X was launched.

Can to show us the source for the “swath of obvious Airbus fanboys” comment you stated ass fact ?

I would not be a fan. I hate touch screens in cars. Like others have said you have to actually look at the thing to use it. I like tactile feel of buttons and switches. I don't have to see them to use them.

One imagines there must be a safeguard against inadvertent command 'clicking'...at least for the slanted center console screen ...or is that deemed too remote a probability?...


Faro

I there a Genius store to take it to if you have questions?

Not strictly on the thread topic, but the military prefers acronyms. They apparently call touch screen "finger on glass" (FOG).

zeke wrote:

Was there ? because it was already a customer option on the A350 before the 77X was launched.

Can to show us the source for the “swath of obvious Airbus fanboys” comment you stated ass fact ?

Here you go viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1354923

Dalmd88 wrote:

I would not be a fan. I hate touch screens in cars. Like others have said you have to actually look at the thing to use it. I like tactile feel of buttons and switches. I don't have to see them to use them.

I would highly doubt there would be many (if any) functions on the FMGS and MCDU that would be operated without looking at them.

One of the reasons I put the Avidyne IFD440 in my Cherokee vs the GNS650 is that I didn’t like the reliance on the touchscreen that Garmin employs. With my IFD, I have the option of using the touchscreen or bezel buttons as I see fit.

That being said, from what I have read about Garmin units (can’t speak for these A350/77X screens) is that they’re not as sensitive as phones, iPads, etc. It takes more deliberate action to utilize the functions vs accidentally swiping and receiving an undesired result. I would presume Airbus and Boeing would research and test things enough to come up with something decent.

I’ll keep my dinosaur tech though. The 757/767 is old but it works! My generation (I’m 30) likes touchscreens but I’m not a fan, personally. And I can input many things on the Boeing CDU without looking, though of course we always verify before executing. Not as intuitive with a touchscreen, but that’s the future, I suppose.

Dalmd88 wrote:

I would not be a fan. I hate touch screens in cars. Like others have said you have to actually look at the thing to use it. I like tactile feel of buttons and switches. I don't have to see them to use them.

As far as cars are concerned I second your opinion, but in cars we've also seen some very poorly thought-out designs make it into production. It's worth noting that in the latest cars equipped with touch screens to control audio and HVAC a good old-fashioned knob or two has reappeared on the dash just below said screen, presumably for settings such as radio volume that get changed frequently in a single trip.

With aircraft, however, there would be multiple large screens mounted more-or-less directly in front of the pilots rather than one small screen mounted between them so it's not hard to envision a permanent row of virtual menu buttons running down the outer edge of each large screen working quite well.

KarelXWB wrote:

At the delivery ceremony of the first A350-1000, Airbus mentioned the A350 cockpit will get touch screen monitors in 2018.

Ref https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR/status/965965366097661958

So what are the benefits of touch screens in the cockpit? Can the crew work faster?

Which screens will be touchscreens? All of them or just the outboards.

Personal opinion follows.

On the MFD ("FMS") the current setup seems fine and I don't think a touchscreen would speed things up very much. I imagine the MFD interface was optimized for the KCCU (Keyboard and Cursor Control Unit) anyway.

On the outboard OIS screens a touchscreen would be rather neat. There's a LOT of trackballing going on out there. As an example using the same chart app on the iPad, scrolling, zooming and moving between charts is much easier, not to mention the ease of making highlights and reminders. Then again the specific OIS is a customer option so "your results may vary".

Andre3K wrote:

zeke wrote:

Was there ? because it was already a customer option on the A350 before the 77X was launched.

Can to show us the source for the “swath of obvious Airbus fanboys” comment you stated ass fact ?

Here you go viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1354923

Huh! That thread did not back your claim at all.

Touchsreens may be very "fancy" and "cute" but nothing beats the ergonomics of mechanical buttons. Although those classical "knobs" would result in a very clumsy design by the standards of today's fashionable time spirit.

Strato2 wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

zeke wrote:

Was there ? because it was already a customer option on the A350 before the 77X was launched.

Can to show us the source for the “swath of obvious Airbus fanboys” comment you stated ass fact ?

Here you go viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1354923

Huh! That thread did not back your claim at all.

Then clearly you didn't actually read it.

I'm not sure if this is a good thing. I thought it was just a gimmick, but all the major manufacturers are trying to implement it, so.. How will the touchscreens improve things though? I mean, if OEMs are going to make them not as sensitive to avoid undesired reactions, what would be the point of using touchscreens that require the same amount of force as mechanical nobs and buttons,,?

My disadvantage about toutchscreens is finger prints all over the glass

Andre3K wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

Here you go viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1354923

Huh! That thread did not back your claim at all.

Then clearly you didn't actually read it.

Drop your ridiculous everyone hates Boeing victim mentality

coolian2 wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Huh! That thread did not back your claim at all.

Then clearly you didn't actually read it.

Drop your ridiculous everyone hates Boeing victim mentality

When it no longer the theme of this website, that's when i'll drop it.

PolarRoute wrote:

I'm not sure if this is a good thing. I thought it was just a gimmick, but all the major manufacturers are trying to implement it, so.. How will the touchscreens improve things though? I mean, if OEMs are going to make them not as sensitive to avoid undesired reactions, what would be the point of using touchscreens that require the same amount of force as mechanical nobs and buttons,,?

Well one big advantage I can think of is the reduction in parts meaning fewer things to break. With no independent buttons you end up with 0 moving/clicking parts.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

PolarRoute wrote:

I'm not sure if this is a good thing. I thought it was just a gimmick, but all the major manufacturers are trying to implement it, so.. How will the touchscreens improve things though? I mean, if OEMs are going to make them not as sensitive to avoid undesired reactions, what would be the point of using touchscreens that require the same amount of force as mechanical nobs and buttons,,?

Well one big advantage I can think of is the reduction in parts meaning fewer things to break. With no independent buttons you end up with 0 moving/clicking parts.

Indeed, but this reduction in parts has already happened. All six screens on the 350 are the same part, with no buttons except power, contrast and brightness. (Brightness can also be controlled centrally for all screens together.) Control is depending on function from the KCCU, the ECAM button panel behind the thrust levers and the tray mounted keyboard (with the laptop keyboard as backup.)

The screens are actually much more than just display devices. Their functionality includes much of the information aggregation and processing that was previously, e.g. in the 330, done by separate standalone computers.

Starlionblue wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

PolarRoute wrote:

I'm not sure if this is a good thing. I thought it was just a gimmick, but all the major manufacturers are trying to implement it, so.. How will the touchscreens improve things though? I mean, if OEMs are going to make them not as sensitive to avoid undesired reactions, what would be the point of using touchscreens that require the same amount of force as mechanical nobs and buttons,,?

Well one big advantage I can think of is the reduction in parts meaning fewer things to break. With no independent buttons you end up with 0 moving/clicking parts.

Indeed, but this reduction in parts has already happened. All six screens on the 350 are the same part, with no buttons except power, contrast and brightness. (Brightness can also be controlled centrally for all screens together.) Control is depending on function from the KCCU, the ECAM button panel behind the thrust levers and the tray mounted keyboard (with the laptop keyboard as backup.)

The screens are actually much more than just display devices. Their functionality includes much of the information aggregation and processing that was previously, e.g. in the 330, done by separate standalone computers.

Well in that case it sounds more like it's adding functionality that's not currently there. The ability to point and touch the screen to do inputs instead of having to use some other device would probably be nice ot have. Not essential, but nice.

I think if they get some creative engineers in there, you may be impressed with the implementation of a touch screen setup. Even things link pinch-zoom for airport maps and diagrams, charts, etc. would be nice. Data input on the ground could be dramatically sped up. You may have the option of actually touching certain map points, acquiring data from that point and being given options on everything from freq. info to nav changes, etc. Not sure all of this is airline transport viable, but certainly there's a huge future for private/commercial (I realize many are already doing this).

As far as SA goes, the ability to just quickly reach out and "grab" information or change something may actually be improved, even in turbulence. Even things like loading lists and scrolling through them could be helped. Besides, who is to say they won't still include (small) physical buttons with the interface on the sides as well, plus maybe a post/pedestal or handle on the sides of the display to brace your palm while interacting with the screens.

Either way, it seems its destined to be the way of the future for sure.

Plus, from a production, maintenance, wiring/weight, layout, and design point of view - the fact that they've consolidated to a single screen design (plus possible touch screen) offers some HUGE advantages beyond simple interface considerations.

edit: It may even prove cheaper for OEMs to push this feature when wiring and design of the cockpit is considered, that may be a large driving force in the years to come - especially if an architecture can be standardized between different platforms.

Andre3K wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

Then clearly you didn't actually read it.

Drop your ridiculous everyone hates Boeing victim mentality

When it no longer the theme of this website, that's when i'll drop it.

well isn't he cute, waging his personal little war against an enemy nobody else sees. and that for an aircraft manufacturer...

Seems handy for the EFB screen, but otherwise I agree that the benefits seem minimal. Personally, I dislike touchscreens for how dirty they look when covered in fingerprints.

Starlionblue wrote:

Indeed, but this reduction in parts has already happened. All six screens on the 350 are the same part, with no buttons except power, contrast and brightness. (Brightness can also be controlled centrally for all screens together.) Control is depending on function from the KCCU, the ECAM button panel behind the thrust levers and the tray mounted keyboard (with the laptop keyboard as backup.)

The screens are actually much more than just display devices. Their functionality includes much of the information aggregation and processing that was previously, e.g. in the 330, done by separate standalone computers.

Does the A350 allow you do dim/brighten half a display, or only the whole screen. I like my displays very dim.

Andre3K wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

Andre3K wrote:

Then clearly you didn't actually read it.

Drop your ridiculous everyone hates Boeing victim mentality

When it no longer the theme of this website, that's when i'll drop it.

Oh come off it. This site is dominated by americans who are always being much harder on Airbus and spreading anti-Airbus myths (that the A340-300 is a "gas guzzler").

Most EFBs are touchscreens already (in my current company we use iPads). This is obviously very handy as information is well organized and easy to use (its actually possible to make your own markings in the charts with different colors, you could f.e. mark the expected taxi routing or the SID). I have never used a "non touchscreen" EFB, but I would imagine that it is more difficult to use...never had trouble with the iPad touchscreen...

zkojq. You can control brightness on all screens together or individual screens.

Anthonyg96 wrote:

My disadvantage about toutchscreens is finger prints all over the glass

That reminds me of when I worked on the D-Jet (if anyone remembers that) in 2008. It had 3 G1000's up front. Our pilots were so bad for fingerprints, we actually had to put a "THIS IS NOT A TOUCHSCREEN" placard on them because we had to clean them so frequently.

meecrob wrote:

Anthonyg96 wrote:

My disadvantage about toutchscreens is finger prints all over the glass

That reminds me of when I worked on the D-Jet (if anyone remembers that) in 2008. It had 3 G1000's up front. Our pilots were so bad for fingerprints, we actually had to put a "THIS IS NOT A TOUCHSCREEN" placard on them because we had to clean them so frequently.

I feel your pain. Drives me nuts. Especially when people wipe dust away from screens with their fingers!