In the last installment in this series, I mentioned how we should get serious about using the head-up display, or the HUD, in the most efficient manner. I’m certainly aware of current directives concerning use of the HUD, and it is not my intention to incite a mutiny or even a minor riot. As I write this, however, the F-16 has been flying twelve years, the F-15 is fourteen years old, and the A-7 is on the wrong side of twenty. Three very fine aircraft, all equipped with very fine HUDs. Now it’s simply a fact that there’s a lot of misinformation being passed around out there about just what the HUD is and is not and how it can or can’t be used. The time has come for someone to stand up and say, "The emperor has no clothes." So let (horrors!) us discuss some of the most oft-mentioned HUDisms and dispel the myths, where appropriate.
Rumor 1: The HUD is disorienting.
False. What is disorienting is being stuck out in the breeze with today’s modem bubble canopies much more so than in earlier airplanes. As a result, the pilot is more exposed to erroneous stimuli than in the past. But the HUD has very little to do with it. This tendency toward increased disorientation is going to occur in the F-16, F-15, OV-10, and in the A-10. And you’ll see a small increase in disorientation incidents if and when the F-4 is retrofitted with its new clear vision windscreen. The real truth is that you’ve not been properly trained to handle weather. All of us are unique in our response to the stimuli around us. For instance, I know of only two times that I’ve felt disoriented in weather while flying single ship. Yet every time I’m flying wing at night, I start to wonder within seconds after entering weather why lead is using ninety degrees of bank or why we’re climbing at seventy degrees – inverted. I know it’s always going to happen, so I’m prepared for it. And it’s far easier to keep myself oriented by glancing through the HUD than by having to look down between my toes to find the ADI (like I had to do back in the days of flying the Rhino). Learn your own response to various weather/night situations. Be prepared to cope with them when they occur.
Rumor 2: HUD symbology moves around too much.
False. Except for severe turbulence, the HUD doesn’t twitch unless you move the stick. Pay attention to the effect various control inputs have on the HUD. They never vary. Once again, it’s easy when you know what to expect.
Rumor 3: HUD symbology moves off the side of the combining glass.
Partially true. If you know what the airplane drift is doing, it’s no big deal. (More on that to follow.) At any rate, the drift cutout switch is on the face of every F-16 HUD I know. So learn what the switch does and when best to use it.
Rumor 4: HUD symbology needs improvement.
True. The Human Factors department is conducting research to define symbology changes that will improve HUD attitude awareness. After exposure to these candidates, I’m certain you’ll agree that several of them promise a great deal of improvement. But the fact is that even the earliest versions of the F-16A/B HUD gave you a superior instrument that is easier to use than any head-down arrangement.
Rumor 5: The HUD is not a control instrument.
The most false of all. Not only is it a great control instrument, but it is also a control and performance instrument at the same time. (Much more on that later.)
So what really is this HUD we’re talking about? What it is is everything you had head down - except now it’s all in one place. And better yet, you can still look at the real world while you’re looking at instruments. The only thing missing is the TACAN information, so why not make the most of it? All TACAN latitudes and longitudes are listed in the instrument flight rules supplement. If you take the time to properly plan the flight (you always do, don’t you?), then there’s no reason not to have all the information you need all the time. If the horizontal situation indicator is too dim to see the distance measuring equipment accurately at night with your dim cockpit light settings, you can always back it up with the distance information off the INS in the lower right corner of the HUD. (With the relative bearing addition to the C/D HUD you can also determine what radial you’re on.)
The HUD’s only real drawback is its field-of-view size. It is necessary to move your head slightly in order to see all the displayed information. But with a little practice, it becomes second nature and you get the information you need at the time. Seldom, if ever, do you need to see the whole field of view at any given time anyway. As long as you can see the velocity vector and any portion of the pitch ladder, you can control the airplane precisely. A larger field of view is nice, however, and you folks who’ll be flying the C/D as they get into the field will be better off in this regard. The larger field of view is much nicer, and you can see all you need without any effort (other than moving your eyes). It’s obvious that this HUD capability exists.
There are a few different pieces of information on the HUD that you’re not accustomed to having available. Most obvious is the flight path marker and its interaction with the pitch ladder. First of all, just what the hell is a flight path marker? It’s really very simple: the little symbol that looks like the backside of a fat little airplane with stubby wings and tail. It’s there to tell you just where the F-16 is going (in other words, the vector of the aircraft’s center of gravity). It’s calculated in the inertial navigation system, but is simply the pitch attitude of the airplane to which we’ve added AOA (algebraically) and drift left or right from the current wind. (There is also some beta, yaw angle if you prefer, but that’s usually minimal). With the drift cutout switch, you can remove wind effect, but you cannot remove AOA effect. The drift cutout switch will center the display in the HUD and keep it there. But just be careful. Remember which way it moved so you’ll know on which side of the airplane the runway will appear if you’re flying a no-kidding approach to (or below) minimums.
A big word of caution here: If you have drift cutout selected and the fire control computer, or FCC, has failed (one or the other by itself has no effect), then the flight path marker will present bogus pitch information if you have any bank established (the greater the bank, the greater the error). So be careful. I’ve never seen it, but the possibility is definitely there. The C/D will give you a caution/avionics light and FCC failed on the pilot fault list, or PFL. The A/B will not. Both will no longer display the lower data blocks on the HUD, the AOA bracket with the gear, or TGT info with a radar lock-on. These are all good clues, so go back to drift normal or use the head down if the FCC fails.
And speaking of an approach to minimums, here is another area where the HUD really shines. Since you’re already looking through the HUD to fly the approach, you’re the first to know when you’ve broken out, as opposed to the ridiculous requirement to crosscheck head down, look outside, refocus, look back inside, refocus again, look back outside, etc., etc, ad nauseam. The flight path marker is really useful information. If it’s superimposed on the horizon line, then you’re flying at a constant altitude regardless of airspeed. It has always bugged me to be on an approach and constantly having to reset the attitude direction indicator, or ADI, as the airspeed continuously decreased from initiation until final. With the flight path marker, I can put the symbol on the horizon line and know I’m maintaining a constant altitude - whether I’m going 600 knots or 130 knots. I’ve heard complaints that it’s hard to control the airplane with the use of the flight path marker. I disagree. It’s really very easy. Follow me through this. You guys who’ve been flying an airplane with a LCOS (lead computing optical sight) gunsight have a leg up on the dirt beaters or the FAIPs (first assignment instructor pilots) in this category, but everybody should be able to understand the following explanation.
Let’s assume you’re straight and level (that is, you’ve managed to get the flight path marker superimposed on the horizon line) and you want to climb or dive a fixed amount. The control input is almost the same as if you were making an aiming change with a LCOS sight. If the pipper is behind your intended victim, you’ve learned not to pull the sight directly to the target. Instead, you normally make a correction of about two-thirds the distance and allow the system to settle down. And if you’ve been practicing correctly, you’re rewarded with the sight drifting up to the target. The reason you have to do this is because the increased g necessary to pull the sight to the target is interpreted by the sighting system as an increased target turn rate. As a result, the sight is depressed still further. Then as you get the sight to the target and partially relax the g to continue tracking, the sight thinks the target has backed off. This means less lead. Thus, when the sight takes out some of the depression, the pipper moves out in front. Damn. Hopefully your friendly squadron weapons officer explained what I just did, or you discovered this fact for yourself. The result is, we learn how the airplane reacts to the way we like to fly; then we establish our own set of rules to move the pipper fore and aft on the target.
Controlling the flight path marker requires almost exactly the same technique. If I’m straight and level and I want to pull up to a ten-degree climb, I don’t pull the nose up until the flight path marker is on the ten-degree line. Why? Easy. As I pull, I increase the AOA. Right? As a result, the flight path marker will be depressed from where I just started. When I get to the ten-degree line, I have to decrease the AOA to stop there, so the right path marker continues to rise slightly. So I overshoot. Damn. Instead, I use my own fudge factor based on how I fly the airplane. If I’m making a rapid correction, I’ll pull to about six or seven degrees nose high and stop there. If I’m making a slow correction, I might pull to eight or nine degrees and stop there. In either case, I end up with the flight path vector on the ten-degree-up line. Voila!
This technique works in both directions. All you have to do is establish your own gains and you can fly the devil out of the F-16 using the HUD. Once you do so, flying any instrument approach is incredibly easy. If you’re using one of the rapidly disappearing ground-controlled approaches, all you have to know beforehand is what angle glide slope the controller will be using. When he says, "Begin descent," you fly the F-16 to that descent angle (regardless of airspeed) and all you should hear is, "On glide path." The same is true of any instrument landing system, or ILS. Look at the approach plate beforehand and it’ll tell you what the glide slope angle is going to be. Fly the F-16 to that descent angle and the glide slope indicator shouldn’t move. It’s also a further crosscheck that the ILS director bug is working properly. Furthermore, if the flight path marker is 500 feet down the runway, then that is almost exactly where you’re going to touch down, providing you don’t make any gross control inputs. Allow for a little float during the flare if that’s how you land the airplane.
With only a little practice, you can also use the flight path marker as a bank indicator. The stubby little wings of the flight path marker always remain fixed in the same relationship to the stubby little wings of the F-16; therefore, the angle between wings and pitch ladder is the bank angle of the airplane. Make sure you know, without thinking about it, whether you’re looking at a positive line (climbing) or a negative line (descending) and the HUD makes for the world’s best attitude indicator.
For you diehards who insist you can’t possibly fly an airplane on instruments without a pitch reference, all is not lost. Simply turn on the standby reticle. You can now increase or decrease the mil setting so that your favorite part of the reticle is superimposed on the horizon line. How about that? Instant electronic attitude indicator. It might even be a good idea for everybody to start this way until you’re comfortable with using the flight path marker.
One other very subtle difference in the HUD exists for those of you who’ve never had occasion to use one. Although a degree is always a degree, it appears that the angles displayed on the HUD are much larger than you’re accustomed to on the normal ADI. If you think about the geometry involved (much longer sight radius with the HUD focused at infinity), it should be clear why this impression exists. As a result, your impression of necessary correction sizes (to fly the F-16 on instruments using the HUD) are larger than the ones you’re accustomed to using head-down. The first inclination is that you’re making much larger corrections on the HUD. Just install this in core and, once more, the fact that it’s easy to fly instruments on the HUD should be apparent. In other words, what appears to be a small correction on the ADI gives the impression of a much larger correction on the HUD. Just recognize this fact and there should be no reason for confusion.
I told you the HUD is focused at infinity. I lied. At least the engineers lied to me. The HUD is focused close to infinity but not quite. So during the flare, make a conscious effort to look at the ground. The HUD symbology will still be clear enough to read but you will be better able to judge just when you are going to arrive on terra firma. Nicer landings should result.
I mentioned earlier that the HUD is both a control and a performance instrument. I meant exactly that. All I have to do is place the velocity vector on the horizon line with no bank angle and I know the aircraft is in level flight. I don’t have to look at the vertical velocity because I already know it’s zero. I’m so sure it’s zero that I never bother to display it on the HUD. Since the vertical velocity is zero, I know the altitude has not changed. If I have not made a power change since the last time I was stable, I know the airspeed has not changed. The wings are level so the heading is not changing. Notice, please, that I’ve not yet had to look anywhere but the center of the HUD. Hence, my comment about field-of-view size having little direct bearing on the A/B HUD. You can never say the same about flying with a head-down pitch reference system like you still have between your legs in the F-16 or in any other airplane. This is not to say that I don’t crosscheck other HUD information. I do exactly that if I want total situational awareness. But the important fact is that aircraft control with the HUD is infinitely easier and more precise than you can get head down. And you can get all this information with only one glance at one part of the HUD.
The main thing about the HUD is that it’s different than what you’ve been using, unless you just came from the A-7 or the F-15. But it makes little difference whether you’ve been using the HUD or not. Sit down, stop what you’re doing, and think about what the HUD will provide. Read the books, engage in some self study, and the end result has to be better aircraft control. It works. It works well. And it’s time to get rid of all these old wives’ tales that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on or the booze they’re discussed over at the stag bar. The HUD is an excellent device for aircraft control and weapon delivery. There’s absolutely no reason for guys to kill themselves simply because they haven’t taken the time to get really familiar with a new system and what it can do for them.
F-16 HUD: Furthermore
By Joe Sweeney
Experimental Test Pilot
The concept of using the HUD as a primary reference for instrument flight has been steadily gaining support during the last five to ten years. As yet, however, the idea is not what one might call widely accepted. My own operational experience has convinced me that, when compared to a capable HUD, the traditional, dedicated control and performance indicators actually require more work and talent to achieve equal performance. Additionally, in this age of information-intensive cockpits, we simply cannot afford to devote such a large quantity of forward-quarter instrument panel space to non-versatile equipment. But don’t get the idea that I’m about to advocate the HUD as a tradeoff to gain panel space for advanced sensors and controls. Not at all. I’m about to advocate the HUD as the primary instrument reference based on its own merits in that role. Cockpit panel space just happens to be a welcome side benefit.
I’d like to offer the following opinions for you to consider.
Not all HUDs are created equal.
We talk of using the HUD to perform certain tasks, to provide information, and to make life simpler. Joe Bill and I refer primarily to the F-16 HUD. However, I will comment on HUDs in general because it’s important to note that specifications and standards have not been rigorously applied. So what you have are HUD capabilities and characteristics that vary greatly between aircraft types. Originally, the HUD was not envisioned to fulfill a requirement for instrument flight indication. The classic control, performance, and navigation instruments essentially satisfied those needs. The HUD was designed as an air-to-air and/or air-to-ground weapon delivery reference. As such, symbology, layout, fields of view, and information sources varied greatly. But it soon became apparent that the flight path marker or velocity vector information, if accurately displayed, provided both control and performance indication without a requirement to interpret and integrate separate indications. As a result, pilots flying airplanes with more capable HUDs (the A-7D or A-7E, for instance) soon included the flight path marker in their instrument scan. Many pilots progressed further to making the flight path marker/pitch ladder combination the hub of their scan (instead of the ADI) and now included the ADI as just another instrument in the scan. This transition was crucial since it affected the pilot’s control strategy. No longer did he have to control one or two indications and then interpret five or six others in estimating the airplane’s performance state. Now he could use the same indication to control the main performance parameter, the flight path.
Since HUDs have not been integrated into the aircraft to provide an instrument flight reference, each HUD has to be independently assessed to determine whether (or to what extent) it can be used for instrument flying. The F-16, particularly the C/D model, has the necessary HUD capabilities for safe and precise instrument flight. The HUD is reliable, provides failure indications, contains accurate and usable symbology, and (in the C/D) has a good field of view. And the so-called primary flight instruments provide both an adequate cross check (should you feel the need) and system redundancy in case a failure occurs in the HUD, in its display generator, or in an information source (that is, in the central air data computer).
So when anyone addresses the topic of the HUD or using HUDs, he must qualify the specific capability to which he is referring. Some level of standardization is required in HUDs. But in the meantime, individual HUDs can be independently assessed as to their instrument flight reference capability.
The HUD can be extremely reliable and can indicate failures.
This appears to be a comment encompassing two separate issues, but in fact they are intertwined. Both capabilities have been criticized as lacking in HUDs. Here you have two of the primary arguments against using existing HUDs or designing future HUDs as the primary instrument flight reference. Well, sure, given the premise that not all HUDs have been designed to perform instrument flying tasks, I’ll certainly agree that reliability, redundancy, and adequate failure indications are not always inherent in specific HUD designs. However, a few points need emphasizing.
Let’s talk in generalities first. Neither reliability level nor lack of failure indications should ever be used to dismiss designing a HUD as the primary instrument flight reference. Reliability and failure indications, given today’s technology, can be specified and designed into the equipment. Furthermore, independent instruments solely for cross-checking HUD accuracy would no longer be required. That level of redundancy belongs in the HUD and in its information sources. Cockpit design is leaning more and more toward multifunction displays, or MFDs, capable of providing the same HUD display in an alternate, head-down manner when necessary or desired. As with today’s and tomorrow’s flight control system requirements, all HUD information required for instrument flight can be provided by redundant sensors and data paths. These integrated inertial sensor assemblies and redundant air data systems would make the HUD as reliable as the flight control system.
How does the capability for failure indication relate to HUD reliability and accuracy? Contemporary airplanes are being designed with continuous system failure monitoring during all phases of ground and flight operations. We simply need to decide what failure indications are necessary, allow system redundancy to automatically compensate for failures, and reconfigure the system accordingly. Indications to the pilot need not be manifested in the HUD but simply in a fault list or status display. If redundancy is present and the system is capable of a full-up display during failure states, why should the display change? I don’t know about you, but I never cared for partial panel instrument flying. If the failure is in the HUD, rather than in the information source, then an MFD capable of displaying the HUD format provides the pilot with a simple, consistent transition.
Now the only time you’re without your HUD display somewhere in the cockpit is if you’ve been degraded to battery only. That requirement will probably be a separate design issue based on statistical probabilities. So the idea is to make system reliability requirements drive failure indication requirements. Let’s specify and design reliable, accurate HUD information displays based on redundancies in the information sources (which is already available to some extent in electric flight control systems). And let’s provide an ability to alternately display the desired information on a separate MFD.
Those were the generalities. Now what about the specific airplane we’re flying? Well, we’ve got a different kind of redundancy: the HUD and the head-down instruments. We also have plenty of failure indications through the continuous fault monitoring system and PFL and/or maintenance fault list, or MFL, displays. When the information sources fail, that information is deleted from the HUD. In the case of flight path errors, I have no trouble deciphering the absence of the flight path marker as an adequate failure indication since it’s the focal point of my scan. And I much prefer this deletion to an erroneous information display. Nothing used to disorient me more than when an instructor would fail my ADI under the bag or in the simulator and the instrument would sit there frozen. It’s extremely difficult to drop it from your scan. If the central air data computer, the CADC, fails, you simply have no airspeed or altitude. It’s impossible not to notice it – and I realize that impossible is a dangerous word to use. Any subtle degradation in HUD attitude information is also going to affect your ADI – the information comes from the same source. Summing up, the F-16 provides you with sufficient reliability, redundancy, and failure monitoring to use the HUD in any weather with the confidence that you know and understand the state of your airplane and the status of its equipment.
Meaningful HUD training is necessary to gain your acceptance of the HUD’s strengths.
In the F-16, when I talk of using the HUD as an instrument flight reference, I don’t mean to say that it’s already optimized for that role. That will come as HUDs further evolve from studies, research, and (most importantly) from increased operational use. Is it going to happen? Sure it is, because advanced cockpits and increased pilot awareness of HUD capabilities will demand it. I’m simply trying to convince you – regardless of whether you’re flying your first operational airplane or have logged 5,000 hours – that meaningful HUD training in the F-16 (especially in the C/D) will make instrument flying easier, will make you a more consistent and precise instrument pilot, and will ease future transitions into different aircraft. But you won’t notice the immediate effects by sampling the HUD on only a few sorties, nor will it impress you if 400/1 in rain is your initiation. Training is the key. I think Joe Bill and I may differ a little here in that I didn’t immediately get comfortable with the HUD. But the logic was inescapable. It had to be easier. So over an eighteen-month period, I very methodically weaned myself off the ADI, altimeter, airspeed indicator, and WI in the A-7E. Now I find myself in an interesting situation: In the F-16, I’ve never used any of the head-down instruments (besides the horizontal situation indicator for TACAN) except in a backup situation. Flying F-4s in the Navy Reserve, I have no HUD, so it’s back to head-down attitude instrument flying. From that dual perspective I’m in complete agreement with Joe Bill on the subject of disorientation and weather-induced accidents. I’m convinced that the reason for accidents in instrument meteorological conditions, or IMC, is the lack of pilot proficiency in IMC. It’s not easy to fly in bad weather. Furthermore, it’s downright difficult to continually scan six to eight different instruments, located who-knows-where in relation to one another, fight the false physical sensations, and still have to interpret and integrate the information to get an estimate of what you really want to know – which is where you and your airplane are going.
Now let’s take the HUD. Defining it as a primary flight instrument can be stated as sole use of the HUD for any control, performance, or navigation information required for instrument flight. That may be a handful at first. But in the F-16, there’s no reason to approach it like that. The fundamental transition that must be made is in relocating the focal point of the instrument scan from the old, head-down ADI to the HUD’s flight path marker and pitch ladder. Your instrument scan during workup periods can then encompass whatever you need, either on the HUD or head down, until you’re comfortable with the basics of the flight path marker. You must use it every chance you get in IMC conditions, but make it a continual buildup process. Practice self-controlled approaches in actual IMC during medium altitude penetrations. The two-seater can be used for IMC and night unusual attitude recoveries with the rear seater backing you up.
Training in controllable situations at every opportunity will soon have you referencing the flight path marker as the focal point for control and performance data. From there, it’s a simple matter of getting comfortable with the HUD as the source for altitude, airspeed, and heading information. Additionally, you’re provided with raw ILS needles and a flight director that makes the whole approach simple. You don’t need a WI, and I guess bank angle is a debatable topic. I’m perfectly comfortable with the flight path marker for that. I may not be able to nail forty-five degrees angle of bank, but I can give you forty-five plus-or-minus five every time. And I don’t have to open up my scan to do it. It also takes some pre-IMC penetration thinking to remind yourself that, even though you’re looking up (and hence out), there’s still no reason to be less than a hundred percent on instruments (that is, on the HUD symbology) except for quick looks for visual meteorological conditions. You really can concentrate fully on HUD symbology in IMC.
In the F-16C, we do not have the capability to put the HUD head down on an MFD. That’s regrettable since it’s sometimes a quick cure for when you’re fighting vertigo and just want to bury your head somewhere. Sure you can use the attitude instruments, but that flight path marker is too valuable. Additionally, as you get comfortable with the entire HUD display, a head-down replica makes for no difference in control strategy.
Not everything will be intuitive at first, but think back to your initial training with head-down instruments. They’re intuitive now because they’re familiar. I’ll agree that the F-16 HUD could certainly benefit from some symbology optimization. I’ve seen better ideas for certain aspects of HUD symbology in different HUDs. But with training and repetition, a rapid interpretation of your airplane’s state will soon become much more complete and meaningful. And that will make you a safer instrument pilot.
The HUD is being successfully used as the primary instrument reference in contemporary fighters.
The contention that the HUD is not a suitable instrument flight reference loses credibility when you learn that it is, in fact, being so used. The Navy chose to design its F/A-18 cockpit such that the HUD fulfilled the instrument flight reference requirement. The airplane is still equipped with a very small, pneumatically driven set of performance instruments (altimeter, airspeed, and vertical velocity) and a small, self-contained standby ADI, but these instruments are poorly located for primary use and are included solely as a backup system. The HUD is it.
Additionally, the HUD display can be selected on an MFD if desired. The transitioning pilots are a cross section of the Navy’s entire aviation experience base, from low-hour, first-tour aviators to seasoned fliers with over 5,000 hours and 1,000 carrier landings. Except for those with prior A-7E experience, all are new to using the HUD for instrument flight. There is no situation more disorienting than over open water on a very black night. Yet the initial two carrier air wing deployments of the F/A-18 (six squadrons of airplanes) proved that not only could the HUD be successfully used but that performance could also improve as well. Day and night carrier boarding rates (the ratio of successful arrestments to total approaches) actually exceeded overall fleet averages, including those of airplanes (F-4, A-7) that were replaced by the F/A-18. Admittedly, that result is attributable to various aspects of the airplane’s design, but the HUD is certainly a contributor. There is very little difference between the HUD in the F/A-18 and that in the F-16C/D. The F/A-18 includes a bank angle pointer, some TACAN coarse deviation information, a slightly different attitude indication, and proportionally canted pitch bars for unusual attitude determination. I believe that most of those pilots, after training to use the HUD and acquiring the operational experience to go with it, would choose it over traditional attitude instrument flying.
The sidestick controller provides one analogy.
It’s not an exact analogy by any means, but acceptance of the HUD for instrument flight can be compared to acceptance of a relatively fixed sidestick for control of the airplane. Both are departures from traditional, warm feeling systems that worked. Both require some time, thought, and training to use proficiently. Both still have many detractors who are simply unwilling to change. Yet the majority of pilots who have flown both types of instruments and both types of controllers prefer the HUD and the sidestick to the more traditional equipment. Finally, both the HUD and sidestick give cockpit designers the flexibility and freedom required for advanced cockpit and systems integration. Proven, simple designs should not be changed simply because a seductive new technology has appeared. But the HUD and sidestick are technological advances that truly provide more capability for the pilot.
The F-16C/D is a great training vehicle for HUD instrument flying.
Now I know this article is not going to make pilots immediately change their philosophy about using the HUD. I saw the same mindset in the Navy at the beginning of the F/A-18 program that I read about in HUD surveys among Air Force pilots. Primary support for using the HUD came from HUD users, former A-7 drivers. Most others were either misled due to lack of HUD exposure or were not convinced that there’s any reason to give up using a technique that works. Keep in mind, though, that all of us were initially instrument trained the same way. I’m not advocating that you abandon your present technique. I’m simply expressing an opinion: If you take advantage of the F-16’s very capable HUD and its complete set of traditional instruments, methodically and patiently transition the focal point of your scan to the flight path marker/pitch ladder, and let nature take its course, then you won’t be able to stop yourself from converting. Now I’m not going to be surprised if I get hate mail within a few months stating, "I tried all this HUD stuff and it doesn’t do anything for me." I can’t help recalling, however, that I started studying German in the ninth grade yet it didn’t make pictures in my mind until the tenth grade. Training is the key. It should start in undergraduate pilot training with a HUD-equipped trainer. If not there, then with your first flight in the F-16.
