Why Not Use PC To Make Glass Cockpit?

Standard disclaimer applies: I still have my copy of Flight Training
next to the porcelain throne. Ahem.

However, as I flip the pages of this magazine, I cannot help but think
that companies like Garmin are getting off a bit easy.

Being a software developer, I am very suprised to discover that not
every aicraft costing over $30,000 has a full-featured glass cockpit.
Unless I am missing somethnig, it appears that everything that a pilot
needs can be made with very very cheap hardware.

A PC can be had for under $500 easily, the mother board for even less.
There are software programmable radios that can be made for under $100
that can tune into any frequency under 1GHz (in other words, if it's
there and not encrypted, you can get it). There are USB sensors of all
sorts (altitude, humidity, wind speed, etc.) And good software
engineers can write pretty much any piece of software that is required
so long as they receive guidance about what is supposed to do what,
with pictures of twirly things to on the display to keep the pilot from
getting bored.

So I am wondering, why isn't anyone doing this on a grander scale. Are
they?


There is nothing wrong with PC hardware as long as its rugged enough to pass
environmental qualification. The problem is that you can't put Windows on
any glass cockpit display that is used for primary flight instruments. The
reason you can't is that you won't be able to comply with the FAA approved
software development process objectives. Moving maps and other
multifunction displays do commonly use industrial PC motherboards and
Windows.

You can go build your own plane and twiddle with Windows all you want. Or
you can use a PC as long as its not permanently installed in the plane.

You may be a software developer but you apparently don't have any experience
in embedded high reliability systems. High reliability is not measured in
Mean Time Between Windows Reboot. High development costs due to a rigorous
development process plus small market size equals high prices per unit.

A keyboard is too clumsy for a cockpit. However, many homebuilds use
PDAs and many certified aircraft owners (including myself) have yoke
mounts for their PDA. The PDA is nice because it doesn't require a
keyboard.

-Robert, CFI (and working software architect).

"verticalrate" writes:
Standard disclaimer applies: I still have my copy of Flight Training
next to the porcelain throne. Ahem.

However, as I flip the pages of this magazine, I cannot help but think
that companies like Garmin are getting off a bit easy.

Being a software developer, I am very suprised to discover that not
every aicraft costing over $30,000 has a full-featured glass cockpit.
Unless I am missing somethnig, it appears that everything that a pilot
needs can be made with very very cheap hardware.

A PC can be had for under $500 easily, the mother board for even less.
There are software programmable radios that can be made for under $100
that can tune into any frequency under 1GHz (in other words, if it's
there and not encrypted, you can get it). There are USB sensors of all
sorts (altitude, humidity, wind speed, etc.) And good software
engineers can write pretty much any piece of software that is required
so long as they receive guidance about what is supposed to do what,
with pictures of twirly things to on the display to keep the pilot from
getting bored.

So I am wondering, why isn't anyone doing this on a grander scale. Are
they?

There is nothing wrong with PC hardware as long as its rugged enough to pass
environmental qualification. The problem is that you can't put Windows on
any glass cockpit display that is used for primary flight instruments. The
reason you can't is that you won't be able to comply with the FAA approved
software development process objectives. Moving maps and other
multifunction displays do commonly use industrial PC motherboards and
Windows.

You can go build your own plane and twiddle with Windows all you want. Or
you can use a PC as long as its not permanently installed in the plane.

You may be a software developer but you apparently don't have any experience
in embedded high reliability systems. High reliability is not measured in
Mean Time Between Windows Reboot. High development costs due to a rigorous
development process plus small market size equals high prices per unit.

There's also the factor of parts' availability for
original manufacture and longer-term repairs. It
is my understanding that components for commodity
PCs have production runs measured in days.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
A keyboard is too clumsy for a cockpit. However, many homebuilds use
PDAs and many certified aircraft owners (including myself) have yoke
mounts for their PDA. The PDA is nice because it doesn't require a
keyboard.

-Robert, CFI (and working software architect).

Also, companies like Logitech are not terribly inept at making
yoke-like controls:

I have no doubt that they could make a new line of models durable
enough for aircraft use.

http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/do...S/EN,CRID=1788

-Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Standard disclaimer applies: I still have my copy of Flight Training
next to the porcelain throne. Ahem.

However, as I flip the pages of this magazine, I cannot help but think
that companies like Garmin are getting off a bit easy.

Being a software developer, I am very suprised to discover that not
every aicraft costing over $30,000 has a full-featured glass cockpit.
Unless I am missing somethnig, it appears that everything that a pilot
needs can be made with very very cheap hardware.

A PC can be had for under $500 easily, the mother board for even less.
There are software programmable radios that can be made for under $100
that can tune into any frequency under 1GHz (in other words, if it's
there and not encrypted, you can get it). There are USB sensors of all
sorts (altitude, humidity, wind speed, etc.) And good software
engineers can write pretty much any piece of software that is required
so long as they receive guidance about what is supposed to do what,
with pictures of twirly things to on the display to keep the pilot from
getting bored.

So I am wondering, why isn't anyone doing this on a grander scale. Are
they?

-Chaud Lapin-


Because avionics have standards. PCs don't. A good PC is one that crashes
every month or so. On an airplane, that will get you killed.

The software industry, for which I work, is in a tragic state at the moment.
We are very much like the building trades in the early 1800's. If buildings
fell down on occasion, well, thats too bad. %98 of buildings stayed up,
and the 100 or so people who were killed on occasion were expendable
anyways.

Like the building trades, this will change, as at some point users become
intolerant of %98 "working" software. The software business has become
quality control unconcious, and has been progressively shipping jobs
offshore where software goes from mostly to completely unverifyable.

Now we have everything from cable modems to DVD players that lock up,
with customer service reps who must tell you, with a straight face,
that the answer is to unplug the unit, wait, then plug it back in.

As a software author, I am embarrased by the state of our industry. I do
carry a tablet with Jeppesen flight software on it, and yes, I have
seen it crash. I also have a Garmin 430 in panel. There is no way,
no how I would trust my airplane and life to any way, shape or form
of the unmitigated disaster of quality control that the PC industry has
become.

Everett M. Greene wrote:
There's also the factor of parts' availability for
original manufacture and longer-term repairs. It
is my understanding that components for commodity
PCs have production runs measured in days.


Yes, that's true, but I think that is more a matter of the rate of
innovation in the software/electronics industries. This actually hints
at the essence of what I am thinking about. If the aircraft industry
opens up to the software industry (and commodity consumer electronics),
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:


1. electronic flight log book
2. data logging for everything, for every second of the trip
3. maps of entire planet, in multiple forms.
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.
7. auto-pilot with every type of NAV-AID
8. software radio for tuning to any frequency...simulatneously.
9. on-screen assistance for flight patterns (smoke ring tunnels, etc.)
10. black-box recording of detailed information
11. real-time narration of history/geography or region immediately
below
12. computer-controlled climatization, including seat warming
13. seat-massagers
14. overhead satellite reception (Sirius, etc.)
15. computer controlled occupant-independent lighting
14. laser mount for night-time alignment
15. multiple digital cameras mounted inside and outside for trip
recording
16. advanced noise cancellation using speakers (superposition so you
can hear still hear radio while the noise is being cancelled)

Of course, the same could be said about automobiles, and they are just
starting to catch on (still too slow IMO).

-Chaud Lapin-

Everett M. Greene wrote:
There's also the factor of parts' availability for
original manufacture and longer-term repairs. It
is my understanding that components for commodity
PCs have production runs measured in days.


Yes, that's true, but I think that is more a matter of the rate of
innovation in the software/electronics industries. This actually hints
at the essence of what I am thinking about. If the aircraft industry
opens up to the software industry (and commodity consumer electronics),
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:


1. electronic flight log book
2. data logging for everything, for every second of the trip
3. maps of entire planet, in multiple forms.
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.
7. auto-pilot with every type of NAV-AID
8. software radio for tuning to any frequency...simulatneously.
9. on-screen assistance for flight patterns (smoke ring tunnels, etc.)
10. black-box recording of detailed information
11. real-time narration of history/geography or region immediately
below
12. computer-controlled climatization, including seat warming
13. seat-massagers
14. overhead satellite reception (Sirius, etc.)
15. computer controlled occupant-independent lighting
14. laser mount for night-time alignment
15. multiple digital cameras mounted inside and outside for trip
recording
16. advanced noise cancellation using speakers (superposition so you
can hear still hear radio while the noise is being cancelled)

Of course, the same could be said about automobiles, and they are just
starting to catch on (still too slow IMO).

-Chaud Lapin-

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.

Not quite true. I've received the blue screen of death on an MX20. I
could not reboot after that. It required a software upgrade. Since that
time, Garmin AT has re-done their entire system, with new (3rd
iteration) display hardware and software. {I've had my display replaced
3 times now: I'm keeping my fingers crossed}

Discussions with Garmin AT engineers have led me to believe that
hardware-wise this ain't your mother's motherboard. For one thing, it
is (supposedly) able to withstand temperatures well over 100 F.

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-