Why Not Use PC To Make Glass Cockpit?

If the aircraft industry
opens up to the software industry (and commodity consumer electronics),

Sure thing. Go have a talk with your region's aircraft certification office
about commondity consumer electronics installed in the aircraft. Let us
know how it turns out. On second thought, don't bother, we already know the
answer.


there would be an explosion in interchangeable options, driving the
price very low. Once this happens, the cabins of low-end aircraft
might start too look like this:


assuming your "low-end aircraft" means a piston single....


1. electronic flight log book

can buy these now

2. data logging for everything, for every second of the trip

can do some of this now in MFDs, like engine data

3. maps of entire planet, in multiple forms.

for a piston single ? what the hell for ?

4. flat-panel displays, 1 for each occupant, independent headsets.
5. full-blown entertainment system with library of say, 10,000 songs.
6. DVD players, one for each occupant.

entertainment systems are available today

7. auto-pilot with every type of NAV-AID

are you even a pilot ?

8. software radio for tuning to any frequency...simulatneously.

software controlled digital radios are in avionics today. you're going to
listen to all the frequencies simultaneously ? GPS/FMS will cue up com and
nav frequencies today

9. on-screen assistance for flight patterns (smoke ring tunnels, etc.)

go look at the SATS web site

10. black-box recording of detailed information

expensive and unnecessary, unless its already in some needed equipment

11. real-time narration of history/geography or region immediately
below

go buy a book or put a DVD in

12. computer-controlled climatization, including seat warming

small planes could use improvement here

13. seat-massagers

oh please, get real

14. overhead satellite reception (Sirius, etc.)

this is how you get weather now

15. computer controlled occupant-independent lighting

why does a computer need to get involved

14. laser mount for night-time alignment

existing products show this to be irritating and useless, that's what flight
instruments are for

15. multiple digital cameras mounted inside and outside for trip
recording

you can get these

16. advanced noise cancellation using speakers (superposition so you
can hear still hear radio while the noise is being cancelled)

whatever



Congratulations, you've just doubled the cost of your airplane and put on
enough weight to leave a passenger at home.

There's a lot of innovation going on in the avionics industry for bizjets
and smaller. Most of what you've listed is available, on the way soon, or
being researched. But it is not going to be installed because its a
"commodity consumer electronics". It's going to get installed when somebody
can sell enough of them at a price people will buy it at, and when the FAA
approves the item and its installation. To keep advocating that you should
be able to purchase your primary flight display running Windows from
Wal-Mart is making you look like a fool. And I'm a fool for wasting my time
talking about this when I need to get back to my avionics schematics.

verticalrate wrote:
Congratulations, you've just doubled the cost of your airplane and put on
enough weight to leave a passenger at home.

No. That's the point of the PC solution. Many of the features I
listed add no weight to the aircraft because they are implemented in
software along with the other 40 or 50 features.

There's a lot of innovation going on in the avionics industry for bizjets
and smaller. Most of what you've listed is available, on the way soon, or
being researched.

But's not integrated. And much of it comes in hardware. And its
expensive.

But it is not going to be installed because its a
"commodity consumer electronics". It's going to get installed when somebody
can sell enough of them at a price people will buy it at,

The fact that Garmin does so well is already proof that the current
level of consumption is sufficient to support a market for it. If
these devices were 10 times cheaper, I doubt pilots would become
frustrated at the reduced expense.

To keep advocating that you should
be able to purchase your primary flight display running Windows from
Wal-Mart is making you look like a fool. And I'm a fool for wasting my time
talking about this when I need to get back to my avionics schematics.

I wasn't aware that Walmart had PFD's. Are they in the TV section?

-Chaud Lapin-

In article .com,
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote:

verticalrate wrote:
Congratulations, you've just doubled the cost of your airplane and put on
enough weight to leave a passenger at home.

No. That's the point of the PC solution. Many of the features I
listed add no weight to the aircraft because they are implemented in
software along with the other 40 or 50 features.

not no but yes. many of the "features" require hardware (seat warmer, massage,
big flat panel displays, digital cameras, laser mount).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Bob Noel wrote:
In article .com,
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote:
No. That's the point of the PC solution. Many of the features I
listed add no weight to the aircraft because they are implemented in
software along with the other 40 or 50 features.

not no but yes. many of the "features" require hardware (seat warmer, massage,
big flat panel displays, digital cameras, laser mount).


Yes, this is true. I mixed hardware and software, since I wanted to
say essentially the same thing about hardware (I was a EE in previous
existence).

Since we're talking about hardware, I when I look at the cockpit of a
Cessna, almost everything is a candidate for roughing. Most of the
controls and indicators can be made soft. And if I chose the hardware
and wrote the code (or reviewd it), I would have no qualms about
letting a computer run my craft.

A computer at the center of control would probably end up reducing the
overall weight.

My gut feeling is that there are other opportunites for optimization
elsewhere in the craft.

It's too bad that no one forms a team of people at the leading edge of
each of their respective fields (energy, mechanics, electrical,
software, aero/astro) to design a new type of craft that makes a clean
break with the run-of-the-mill single-prop planes we are seeing today.

I'm not saying that it is easy but it's not like designing a nuclear
weapon.

Now where is that Flying Car?


-Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

A computer at the center of control would probably end up reducing the
overall weight.

It's funny how people tend to gravitate towards a "central control" idea
even though a totally distributed system is much better. Imagine if
all the ILSs in the world were connected to a central computer and what
happens when that computer fails.

Now, I'm not sure how much improvement is really needed for an airplane.
Airplanes are extremely elegant because of their simplicity. If you
ask a mechanical engineer to design something that converts forward
motion into lift with no moving parts, I doubt that he will come up with
a wing.

We have added a few things such as altimeters, airspeed indicators, etc.
These make flying easier and safer, but strictly speaking, do not
make the plane fly. Next, we add radios, transponders and the like.
Again, these help controllers on the ground with safety considerations,
but don't make the plane fly.

So what does a "central control" add?

Stubby wrote:

Now, I'm not sure how much improvement is really needed for an airplane.
Airplanes are extremely elegant because of their simplicity. If you
ask a mechanical engineer to design something that converts forward
motion into lift with no moving parts, I doubt that he will come up with
a wing.

Funny you mention that. I thought long and hard about what gives a
plane lift, relying on Maxwell's interpretation of fluid dynamics, and
though I'm not a mechanical engineer (I'm EE/comp sci), I get the
feeling that not even some pilots don't really know where the forces
come from. Sure, there's the blow over the paper, speed on top greater
than speed on bottom Bernoulli stuff, but unless I'm mistaken,
Maxwell's had a fundamental understanding of aerodynamics.

We have added a few things such as altimeters, airspeed indicators, etc.
These make flying easier and safer, but strictly speaking, do not
make the plane fly. Next, we add radios, transponders and the like.
Again, these help controllers on the ground with safety considerations,
but don't make the plane fly.

So what does a "central control" add?

1. reduced weight - get rid of superfluous mechanical/hydraulics
2. greater efficiency (computers compute things humans prefer not)
3. cost (software controls have essentially zero material incremental
cost)
4. finer control (the control theorists would have fun in this arear)
5. clearer self-diagonsis (devices tell you when they are sick, the
precise moment when they got sick [with ambient data], to what extent
they are sick, and effect on the aircraft performance);
6. safety (aircraft could actually monitor weather in real time and
advise - "rate of decrease in atmospheric pressure is extreme - use
caution" "conditions are prime for icing.." etc.
7. safety - "heavy aircraft heading relative (20, 110, 7) at relative
(8000, 400, 1400) proceed with caution"

There are so many things that one could code in software that would
make the flying experience more rewarding. I've never flown, but I
imagine that it takese focus and concentration.

But you're right: For all the fancy gadgetry, a 777 will still glide
down from 30,000 ft using 100-year-old technology.

-Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

......
1. reduced weight - get rid of superfluous mechanical/hydraulics
We operate just fine with the existing "6-pack", radios, transponder,
etc. Nothing will be gained by a few onces of weight reduction.

2. greater efficiency (computers compute things humans prefer not)
How do you meansure "efficiency"? What things need to be computed that
a human looking at standard flight indicators can't do?

3. cost (software controls have essentially zero material incremental
cost)
Using the word "cost" in a discussion of flying is absurd.

4. finer control (the control theorists would have fun in this arear)
"Finer Control" ? What does this mean? How is it measured? Compare
to standard flight instruments?

5. clearer self-diagonsis (devices tell you when they are sick, the
precise moment when they got sick [with ambient data], to what extent
they are sick, and effect on the aircraft performance);
The simple flight instruments are expected to fail, but very rarely.
Pilots are trained to cross-check among instruments and are required do
demonstrate their ability to function with failing instruments.

6. safety (aircraft could actually monitor weather in real time and
advise - "rate of decrease in atmospheric pressure is extreme - use
caution" "conditions are prime for icing.." etc.
If this were to be a problem, I would not conduct the flight.

7. safety - "heavy aircraft heading relative (20, 110, 7) at relative
(8000, 400, 1400) proceed with caution"
Again, the NOTAMS will advise me of flight conditions. I don't need a
computer to tell me.

There are so many things that one could code in software that would
make the flying experience more rewarding. I've never flown, but I
imagine that it takese focus and concentration.
My adivse it to get a private pilot license so you understand the
issues. You have a solution in search of a problem.

But you're right: For all the fancy gadgetry, a 777 will still glide
down from 30,000 ft using 100-year-old technology.
Actually, it's much older than that.

In addition to high MTBF components, another consideration is that all
electronics should be HIRF protected.