Why Not Use PC To Make Glass Cockpit?

[Le Chaud Lapin]

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-

[Bob Noel]

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

> And good software
> engineers can write pretty much any piece of software that is required

well, for one thing, "pretty much" isn't quite up to the standard I'd
like to see for software that would be responsible for flight critical
information.


> so long as they receive guidance about what is supposed to do what,

and there's the rub, the classic problem in software development.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Dave S]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

>
> So I am wondering, why isn't anyone doing this on a grander scale. Are
> they?
>
> -Chaud Lapin-
>
The "Blue Screen of Death" takes on a new meaning when your entire
instrument panel locks up and you have no backup.

Dave

[[email protected]]

Are you ready to bet your life on Windows XP and some $200 disk drives made
in China and designed to operate in an office?

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-

[Ron Natalie]

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

The Garmin (originally Apollo) MX-20 is a highly specialized PC.
It runs Windows NT 4.0. If you look carefully at the datacard
you'll find a stripped down verion of Windows there (and if you
look really carefully when it boots up you'll see the kernel
startup message appear (updside down at the bottom of the screen
in the current incarnation...older versions came right side up).

The MX20 has yet to blue screen or otherwise exhibit any software
related failure.

[Stubby]

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-
>
What do you believe is in the glass cockpit equipment? Yup. PCs.

Why would any company put out a pice of equipment for $500 when the
market will bear $10,000 ? They are not in business to do pilots a favor.

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article >, > wrote:
>Are you ready to bet your life on Windows XP and some $200 disk drives made
>in China and designed to operate in an office?

Not the original poster, but actually yes I am :) A good stable system
that you do not touch/play with should work/last without problems. And I
don't need to run winXP I could run linux (in fact given the costs and
licenses I would) which is rock solid stable.

[john smith]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> 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.

Already been done.
10-15 years ago Burt Rutan had one of his aircraft (Catbird?) completely
controlled by an Apple laptop computer with custom coded software.

[Nathan Young]

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:02:25 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Already been done.
>10-15 years ago Burt Rutan had one of his aircraft (Catbird?) completely
>controlled by an Apple laptop computer with custom coded software.

His asymetric twin, Boomerang used a laptop for much of the
instrumentation.

[[email protected]]

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" wrote:

> In article >, > wrote:
> >Are you ready to bet your life on Windows XP and some $200 disk drives made
> >in China and designed to operate in an office?
>
> Not the original poster, but actually yes I am :) A good stable system
> that you do not touch/play with should work/last without problems. And I
> don't need to run winXP I could run linux (in fact given the costs and
> licenses I would) which is rock solid stable.

You still need sensors for attitude and heading. You also need sensors for
engine and fuel parameters, and so forth. Somehow, you need all those to
interface with your PC's flight instrument display (displays?).

[Le Chaud Lapin]

wrote:
> Are you ready to bet your life on Windows XP and some $200 disk drives made
> in China and designed to operate in an office?
>

Actually yes. Of course, I would take into the account of
altitude/pressure/temp problems. As a matter of fact, I would be more
comfortable with commodity components than something that's customized,
unless the customization were very very trivial.

Regards,

-Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Nathan Young wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:02:25 GMT, john smith > wrote:
>
> >Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >Already been done.
> >10-15 years ago Burt Rutan had one of his aircraft (Catbird?) completely
> >controlled by an Apple laptop computer with custom coded software.
>
> His asymetric twin, Boomerang used a laptop for much of the
> instrumentation.

I think this is just wonderful. I've always dreamed of making an
ultr-lightweight aircraft using advance controls like this.

Hopefully in a few years I will be able to jettison my current
occupation and devote my effort to it full-time.

-Chaud Lapin

[Le Chaud Lapin]

wrote:
> "'Vejita' S. Cousin" wrote:
> > Not the original poster, but actually yes I am :) A good stable system
> > that you do not touch/play with should work/last without problems. And I
> > don't need to run winXP I could run linux (in fact given the costs and
> > licenses I would) which is rock solid stable.
>
> You still need sensors for attitude and heading. You also need sensors for
> engine and fuel parameters, and so forth. Somehow, you need all those to
> interface with your PC's flight instrument display (displays?).

USB. I think it would be highly appropriate for this type of
application. Theoretically, you can have up to 127 USB devices
pluggged into the same USB card on a PC. If you put multiple cards in
the PC, then you can have even more USB devices. Since the required
bandwidth for temperature sensors is very low, It is conceivable that
one USB PCI card could drive the entire control infrastructure of the
aircraft.

The design would probably entail a redundancy model where one PC
motherboard acts as a secondary to the primary controller. Windows
supports multiple displays, so you could have 4 displays in the
aircraft. One for each passenger, with radio, music, DVD's.

I think this model is the same thing that Boeing/Airbus & friends use,
only they probably get charged 10-20 times the cost of what they should
be paying.

-Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

What about attitude and heading?

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

> wrote:
> > "'Vejita' S. Cousin" wrote:
> > > Not the original poster, but actually yes I am :) A good stable system
> > > that you do not touch/play with should work/last without problems. And I
> > > don't need to run winXP I could run linux (in fact given the costs and
> > > licenses I would) which is rock solid stable.
> >
> > You still need sensors for attitude and heading. You also need sensors for
> > engine and fuel parameters, and so forth. Somehow, you need all those to
> > interface with your PC's flight instrument display (displays?).
>
> USB. I think it would be highly appropriate for this type of
> application. Theoretically, you can have up to 127 USB devices
> pluggged into the same USB card on a PC. If you put multiple cards in
> the PC, then you can have even more USB devices. Since the required
> bandwidth for temperature sensors is very low, It is conceivable that
> one USB PCI card could drive the entire control infrastructure of the
> aircraft.
>
> The design would probably entail a redundancy model where one PC
> motherboard acts as a secondary to the primary controller. Windows
> supports multiple displays, so you could have 4 displays in the
> aircraft. One for each passenger, with radio, music, DVD's.
>
> I think this model is the same thing that Boeing/Airbus & friends use,
> only they probably get charged 10-20 times the cost of what they should
> be paying.
>
> -Chaud Lapin-

[Luke Scharf]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> USB. I think it would be highly appropriate for this type of
> application.

It's way too easy to trip over the cord with USB -- or to have it
vibrate loose. My experience with USB indicates that it isn't reliable
enough for my servers at work, it's not good enough for any airplane I fly.

Maybe if you replaced the connectors or soldered everything well....
But, I'm reluctant to suggest USB to my users for anything more
permenant than a mouse.

-Luke

[Luke Scharf]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>Are you ready to bet your life on Windows XP and some $200 disk drives made
>>in China and designed to operate in an office?
>
> Actually yes. Of course, I would take into the account of
> altitude/pressure/temp problems. As a matter of fact, I would be more
> comfortable with commodity components than something that's customized,
> unless the customization were very very trivial.

If you do that, don't ever plug the machine into the Internet. Also
remove IE.

I take care of about 250 computers, and there's no way I'd bet my safety
on a desktop Windows installation. A customized/embedded/trimmed
version that runs off a ROM might be acceptable if it's been through a
*very* rigorous testing process -- but after you've seen the difference
in performance between a clean machine and a machine after it's been out
in the real world (even with Mozilla Firefox, AdAware, Spybot S&D, *and*
Symantec Corporate Anti-Virus 10 running on it), you won't want to trust
your @$$ to what most people think of as Windows either. A
trimmed/embedded/customized Linux would work too, although I think I'd
be most comfortable with a device running something like VxWorks[0].

As for the disk drives, I recommend a pair CompactFlash storage modules
wired up as IDE devices[1] set up in a RAID mirror setup. That way, the
system is more resistant to things that damage moving parts, and with
the RAID setup, it will continue to run if one of the CompactFlash
devices fails. Use three or four if you don't feel lucky. Of course,
you couldn't run desktop Windows on this because the swapfile would
quickly wear out the CompactFlash (they can only be written a finite
number of times[2]).

-Luke

[0] In one of my earlier jobs, my task was to make VxWorks run on a
single-board-VME Sun clone. I got to read some of the source code, and
it's some of the most carefully documented/commented and sanely designed
C code I've ever seen.

[1] CompactFlash is electrically similar enough to IDE that they can be
wired into an IDE bus without the need for a chip.

[2] I don't remember exactly what the number is -- I seem to remember
that a USB keydrive could take about 500k writes, but it wouldn't
surprise me if that has been extended to a couple of million. Also,
most Flash devices will remap data internally to avoid repeatedly
writing a particular block -- so that the device will last longer.

[Luke Scharf]

Luke Scharf wrote:
> Maybe if you replaced the connectors or soldered everything well....

Er, I meant to say that it might work if you soldered everything or
replaced the connectors. My post-writing editing made what I was trying
to say unclear (though better organized!)

-Luke

[Stubby]

Luke Scharf wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>
>> USB. I think it would be highly appropriate for this type of
>> application.
>
>
> It's way too easy to trip over the cord with USB -- or to have it
> vibrate loose. My experience with USB indicates that it isn't reliable
> enough for my servers at work, it's not good enough for any airplane I fly.
>
> Maybe if you replaced the connectors or soldered everything well....
> But, I'm reluctant to suggest USB to my users for anything more
> permenant than a mouse.

There is already an adequate standard buss for interconnecting avionics
devices. I'm sure you can purchase a PC card to interface to that.

But you're on the right track. Non-stop, fault-tolerant computing is
the issue.

[Ted]

Stubby wrote in message ...
>Luke Scharf wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>>
>>> USB. I think it would be highly appropriate for this type of
>>> application.
>>
>>
>> It's way too easy to trip over the cord with USB -- or to have it
>> vibrate loose. My experience with USB indicates that it isn't reliable
>> enough for my servers at work, it's not good enough for any airplane I
fly.
>>
>> Maybe if you replaced the connectors or soldered everything well....
>> But, I'm reluctant to suggest USB to my users for anything more
>> permenant than a mouse.
>
>There is already an adequate standard buss for interconnecting avionics
>devices. I'm sure you can purchase a PC card to interface to that.
>
>But you're on the right track. Non-stop, fault-tolerant computing is
>the issue.

The Space Station uses IBM 760xd laptops for their glass cockpit.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-105/html/sts105-304-0
25.html

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-2/html/iss002e5478.h
tml

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-3/html/iss003e5552.h
tml

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk701/technologies_case_study09186a008
00b53b6.shtml

[Le Chaud Lapin]

wrote:
> What about attitude and heading?
>

You know how electrical engineers are. They drool over the thought of
making a gadget that is compatible with an interface like USB. If it
can be done, someone is probably doing it.

altitude
velocity (translational and rotational)
acceleration (translational and rotational)
humidity
windspeed
attitude
temperature
pressure
GPS coordinates
illumination
etc....

All they do is take the existing devices, throw on USB interface, and
and it's good to go (and cheaper).

-Chaud Lapin-

[verticalrate]

> 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.

[Robert M. Gary]

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).

[Everett M. Greene]

"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.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

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/downloads/categories/US/EN,CRID=1788

-Chaud Lapin-

[Scott Moore]

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.

[Le 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-

[Le 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-

[verticalrate]

> 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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

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-

[Gig Giacona]

Well Ted, that's hardly a cockpit and I doubt the space station is going to
have to navigate in the clouds anytime soon or with anybody on board.


>
> The Space Station uses IBM 760xd laptops for their glass cockpit.
>
> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-105/html/sts105-304-0
> 25.html
>
> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-2/html/iss002e5478.h
> tml
>
> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-3/html/iss003e5552.h
> tml
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk701/technologies_case_study09186a008
> 00b53b6.shtml
>
>
>
>

[Luke Scharf]

Ted wrote:
>
> The Space Station uses IBM 760xd laptops for their glass cockpit.
>
>
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-105/html/sts105-304-025.html
>

The pictures show astronauts using what appears at first-glance to be a
conventional laptop[0] computer in the space station. The way the stuff
is arranged in the pictures would imply that they're using them for
"desktop" computing tasks -- instead of as a real-time life-critical device.

As a professional systems administrator, I fully endorse the use of
desktop/laptop computers for desktop/laptop computing tasks. In fact,
my ability to eat depends on other people finding such tools to be
valuable! :-)

-Luke

[0] According to the spaceref article, though, the hardware has been
redesigned a bit and thoroughly tested to make sure that it's be better
suited to space than a consumer laptop. The deep review of information
about the hardware (look at every chip on every board) & software
(review the source for obvious brain-deadness) and the testing is what
most folks probably wouldn't have the time (or motivation?) to do
properly in a homebrew device.

[Luke Scharf]

verticalrate wrote:
> 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.

Another thing to mention is that he may use a small number of computers
for his development work. When you are looking after hundreds of
computers, you can gather rough seat-of-the-pants reliability statistics
very quickly.

I now actually believe-in-my-gut thar hard drive failures *are* discrete
random events with their bell-curve (bi-nomial?) distribution centered
roughly around the MTBF that is published in the manual. Discounting
DOA drives, I've had people get unlucky with HDDs that fail after mere
months of operation, and I've had drives that were made 10 years ago
that keep writing, storing, and reading sectors without trouble.
There's no way that I can predict the failures.

-Luke

P.S. The above is great material for the back-up-your-stuff-please
speech! :-)

[Ted]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in message...

>
>-Chaud Lapin-
>

Is that French for "hot rabbit"?

[Ted]

Never the less, its a vehicle traveling at mach 25 and uses laptops as the
human interface to manage attitude, thrusters, environmental control and
life support, communications, electrical power and robotic systems.

Gig Giacona wrote in message ...
>Well Ted, that's hardly a cockpit and I doubt the space station is going to
>have to navigate in the clouds anytime soon or with anybody on board.
>
>
>>
>> The Space Station uses IBM 760xd laptops for their glass cockpit.
>>
>>
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-105/html/sts105-304-0
>> 25.html
>>
>>
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-2/html/iss002e5478.h
>> tml
>>
>>
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-3/html/iss003e5552.h
>> tml
>>
>> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213
>>
>>
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk701/technologies_case_study09186a008
>> 00b53b6.shtml
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Ted wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote in message...
>
> >
> >-Chaud Lapin-
> >
>
> Is that French for "hot rabbit"?

Yes.

Long story short, I visit France each year, and the first time I was
there, I found an advertisement for a French movie - "Le Chaud Lapin".
See:

http://www.moviecovers.com/film/titre_LE%20CHAUD%20LAPIN.html

When I murmured it out loud, there happened to be young French women at
the party who overheard, and so that became my name thenceforth, even
though I am neither hot nor do I bear any resemblance to a rabbit.

-Chaud Lapin-

[G. Sylvester]

Ted wrote:
> Never the less, its a vehicle traveling at mach 25 and uses laptops as the
> human interface to manage attitude, thrusters, environmental control and
> life support, communications, electrical power and robotic systems.

and gets bombed with tons of lots of radiation that destroys many
electrical components.

Gerald

[Bob Noel]

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

[Le Chaud Lapin]

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-

[Stubby]

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?

[john smith]

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

[Le Chaud Lapin]

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-

[Stubby]

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.

[Gig Giacona]

I looked at several of the links.. I didn't see anywhere that said it was
using those thinkpads for manuvering.
"Ted" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Never the less, its a vehicle traveling at mach 25 and uses laptops as the
> human interface to manage attitude, thrusters, environmental control and
> life support, communications, electrical power and robotic systems.
>
> Gig Giacona wrote in message ...
>>Well Ted, that's hardly a cockpit and I doubt the space station is going
>>to
>>have to navigate in the clouds anytime soon or with anybody on board.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The Space Station uses IBM 760xd laptops for their glass cockpit.
>>>
>>>
> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-105/html/sts105-304-0
>>> 25.html
>>>
>>>
> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-2/html/iss002e5478.h
>>> tml
>>>
>>>
> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-3/html/iss003e5552.h
>>> tml
>>>
>>> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213
>>>
>>>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk701/technologies_case_study09186a008
>>> 00b53b6.shtml
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> 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.

The more I hear of this type stuff, including similar problems in "high
end" biz jets, it seems only Boeing and Airbus have really gotten it right
for advanced displays and nav systems.

[john smith]

wrote:
> The more I hear of this type stuff, including similar problems in "high
> end" biz jets, it seems only Boeing and Airbus have really gotten it right
> for advanced displays and nav systems.

Hmmm... you have never seen the video of the Airbus A320 flying through
the trees prior to crashing at the Paris Airshow several years ago, have
you. So much for advanced electronic nav and display systems!

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Stubby wrote:
> My adivse it to get a private pilot license so you understand the
> issues. You have a solution in search of a problem.

Just as I read the last line of your sentence, I was about to pop my
favorite techno CD into my PC (which acts as the centerpiece of my home
sound system), and it occured to me that I was using a solution that
fixed a non-existent problem. So in the spirit you ole Stubby, i'm
going to put this CD back into the case and see if I can go find that
Kraftwerk cassette tape from the early 80's.

I'm pretty sure the cassette player still works just fine. :)

-Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

john smith wrote:

> wrote:
> > The more I hear of this type stuff, including similar problems in "high
> > end" biz jets, it seems only Boeing and Airbus have really gotten it right
> > for advanced displays and nav systems.
>
> Hmmm... you have never seen the video of the Airbus A320 flying through
> the trees prior to crashing at the Paris Airshow several years ago, have
> you. So much for advanced electronic nav and display systems!

That was an anomoly. But, in any case, that was a auto-flight/flight controls
design and operations issue. My previous comment, as you can see, was about
flight instrument displays and navigation systems.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, wrote:

> > Hmmm... you have never seen the video of the Airbus A320 flying through
> > the trees prior to crashing at the Paris Airshow several years ago, have
> > you. So much for advanced electronic nav and display systems!
>
> That was an anomoly. But, in any case, that was a auto-flight/flight controls
> design and operations issue. My previous comment, as you can see, was about
> flight instrument displays and navigation systems.

It might have been an anomoly, but it was not surprising given the history
of introducing new technology and the resulting discovery of new failure
modes.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >, wrote:
>
> > > Hmmm... you have never seen the video of the Airbus A320 flying through
> > > the trees prior to crashing at the Paris Airshow several years ago, have
> > > you. So much for advanced electronic nav and display systems!
> >
> > That was an anomoly. But, in any case, that was a auto-flight/flight controls
> > design and operations issue. My previous comment, as you can see, was about
> > flight instrument displays and navigation systems.
>
> It might have been an anomoly, but it was not surprising given the history
> of introducing new technology and the resulting discovery of new failure
> modes.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> no one likes an educated mule

I would certainly agree with that. Having said that, my comments in the context of
the thread were about flight instrument displays and navigation systems. There are
huge problems with this stuff from light aircraft panel mounts to high end biz
jets. In that context, both Boeing and Airbus have done far better to provide
robust flight instrument display and navigation platforms that the rest of the
industry.

[NW_PILOT]

"'Vejita' S. Cousin" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, > wrote:
> >Are you ready to bet your life on Windows XP and some $200 disk drives
made
> >in China and designed to operate in an office?
>
> Not the original poster, but actually yes I am :) A good stable system
> that you do not touch/play with should work/last without problems. And I
> don't need to run winXP I could run linux (in fact given the costs and
> licenses I would) which is rock solid stable.

I agree I would put my trust on to a solid state flash drive running Linux
kernel, They can write a Linux kernel (OS) to fit on a small flash drive or
integrated chip witch means no moving parts just a silicon chip witch all
GPS units built today use IE Garmin 430, 530 ect and people put their lives
in its hands and its a proprietary unknown OS to may have unknown bugs.

[Ted]

The IBM 760 laptops are used on the space station in three classes of
service: PCS, SSC and Payload Laptop.

There does seem to be a scarcity of information on the net about the PCS
function. This is all I could find.
http://www.hal-pc.org/~slcweb2/0MonthlyPresent/0404Nasa/Space.rtf

When the IBM 760 is loaded with PCS software it can perform the command and
control interface to the Station itself. When the laptops are loaded with
SSC software and are connected to a ten base 2 coax network called the Ops
LAN they can perform typical office automation functions like email and
displaying procedure text files. They even have IP phone software on the
SSCs so the crew can make standard telephone calls from space as of they
were an extension on the Johnson Space Center phone system.

http://www.techbriefs.com/spinoff/spinoff2001/johnson.html

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk701/technologies_case_study09186a008
00b53b6.shtml



Gig Giacona wrote in message ...

>I looked at several of the links.. I didn't see anywhere that said it was
>using those thinkpads for manuvering.

>"Ted" wrote in message

>>>> The Space Station uses IBM 760xd laptops for their glass cockpit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-105/html/sts105-304-0
>>>> 25.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-2/html/iss002e5478.h
>>>> tml
>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-3/html/iss003e5552.h
>>>> tml
>>>>
>>>> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213
>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk701/technologies_case_study09186a008
>>>> 00b53b6.shtml
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Matt Majka]

See DO-178B for the software side of things and DO-160 for the hardware
environmental side of things... It's not just a matter of throwing together
a bunch of PC hardware and hacking together some software.


On 2005-06-18 03:03:00 -0600, "Le Chaud Lapin"
> said:

> 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-