Is it a habit we prefer mechnical instruments?

[[email protected]]

We used to mechanical instruments when we learnt fly in school. Whether
it is habit we can not accept digital meters. For example quartz
crystal watch, we almost accept it now. There few people using
mechanical watch. I think it is developing direction for digital
meters.
I just wondered which kinds of digital meters, electric analog or
numeric meter, do pilot can accept. Or we can accept an electric analog
meter with digital number in it?

[cavelamb]

wrote:
> We used to mechanical instruments when we learnt fly in school. Whether
> it is habit we can not accept digital meters. For example quartz
> crystal watch, we almost accept it now. There few people using
> mechanical watch. I think it is developing direction for digital
> meters.
> I just wondered which kinds of digital meters, electric analog or
> numeric meter, do pilot can accept. Or we can accept an electric analog
> meter with digital number in it?
>

Personally, I'd go for an analog display digital.

It's a question of how easy it is to read, interpret and understand the
information that the meter is displaying

Raw numbers takes more time and thought.

Can you imagine trying to fly needle, ball, and airspeed with
numeric readouts?


Richard

[Denny]

Same deal with a VOM.... For a static voltage reading a digital VOM is
nice...
But for tuning a circuit, where you are twisting some pot, etc. and
watching the reading change, the moving analog needle is the preferred
meter... The human brain is very good at seeing something move and
predicting where it will be an instant from now... Same skill as <your
dog> catching a frisbee, or throwing a football ahead of a running
receiver...
Even if the electronics are digital, the display should be some form of
moving 'needle' so the monkey brain behind the yoke can anticipate how
much correction to crank in to make the 'needles' slide back to
center...

denny

[[email protected]]

Thank you Mr. Richard, Denny.
Please not be sick of my more questions.
>From your opinion, you like "needle" meters. I want to know why most of
digital manufacturers made numeric readouts. I think they have
investigated markets, and then they done these kinds of products. Since
I browsed aircraftspure catalogues. I found numeric readout digital
meters stand in front of selling catalogue. I guessed there are a lot
of people buy and use them. Maybe I am wrong.

Luo

[Stealth Pilot]

On 16 Apr 2006 23:44:47 -0700, wrote:

>We used to mechanical instruments when we learnt fly in school. Whether
>it is habit we can not accept digital meters. For example quartz
>crystal watch, we almost accept it now. There few people using
>mechanical watch. I think it is developing direction for digital
>meters.
>I just wondered which kinds of digital meters, electric analog or
>numeric meter, do pilot can accept. Or we can accept an electric analog
>meter with digital number in it?

just as a bum pilot I prefer mechanical needle instrument displays
rather than digital numeric displays.

when the value is changing rapidly the numeric display can be
impossible to read while the needle display can always be read.

when the value is not stable the numeric display has the least
significant digit in constant change which can be needlessly
distracting.

the colour arc behind the needle can tell me instantly whether the
value is within an acceptable range.

I'm not against digital displays at all but I prefer the dual analog
and digital displays so that I can quickly glance at a value under all
situations. if it is stable I would probably use the digits. if it is
in motion I would use the analog needle/bar graph display.

remember as well that in real world aviation environments the
instruments get cold enough at altitude to get condensation everywhere
and in our summers will need to keep working in 45 degree celcius
heat. it isnt good enough to just make instruments, you have to make
instruments that will keep on working in all situations or you may
kill people. kill people and your markets will evaporate overnight.

btw it would be really nice to see the chinese focus on quality!!!!
it is really frustrating to see our industries move to china then to
see the inexorable drop in quality in the subsequent products.
it would also be nice to see china contribute to the development of
new technology rather than the continual debasement of well
established levels of quality.
I have used a chinese made 25mm micrometer now for 15 years which is
superbly made and proves that china can produce quality goods.
unfortunetely flip over the myriad number of broken items these days
and you will see "made in china" on the bottom. this has to change!

in aviation, junk that malfunctions is totally unacceptable.

Stealth Pilot
an australian pilot.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

wrote:
> I just wondered which kinds of digital meters, electric analog or
> numeric meter, do pilot can accept. Or we can accept an electric analog
> meter with digital number in it?

Several responders have pointed out the superior visual cue that an
analog meter makes over a digital read-out, which I completely agree
with.

However, I do think that glass cockpits are not used enough. As an
electrical/software engineer, I know that it is possible to pack every
function of every glass cockpit ever created into one computer costing
less than $1000US, but no one has done this yes. I think the reason has
more to do with knowledge domain than anything else.

The cost savings of having a commoditized machine control and monitor
your plane would simply be enormous. The reduction in weight alone
from eliminating the mechanical controls would be worth the change.
But of course, there are so many more things that you can do with
software that you simply can't do with mechanical controls. I saw a
show recently where stealth pilots were acknowledging this fact, as if
it were not obvious that computer can do things that a human simply
cannot.

I'm waiting for the day when someone gets rid of all these mechanical
controls and run every thing with disposable, off-the-shelf, sensors
and controls that connect to a (fail-safed) CPU that controls every
thing, with 500GB of songs and videos on board, measurements of all
kinds, 3-D render of atmosphere, maps, climate control, lighting,
auto-pilot, software radios, monitoring systems (to make sure I'm
awake), web cam, whatever...

It's not like the eqipment to do this today does not already exist.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Morgans]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote

> As an
> electrical/software engineer, I know that it is possible to pack every
> function of every glass cockpit ever created into one computer costing
> less than $1000US, but no one has done this yes.

If you can do that, you will sell tremendous numbers of them.

Many glass cockpit systems put the readouts in such a way that they are a
tape, or some other means to display the information, without just numbers,
in a visual pointer, or graph. That will be important, to get good
acceptance.

Price is still the key. Make a glass cockpit that people can afford, sell
it to experimental plane owners, the get it certified for the certified
airplanes.
--
Jim in NC

[jls]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> wrote:
> > I just wondered which kinds of digital meters, electric analog or
> > numeric meter, do pilot can accept. Or we can accept an electric analog
> > meter with digital number in it?
>
> Several responders have pointed out the superior visual cue that an
> analog meter makes over a digital read-out, which I completely agree
> with.
>
> However, I do think that glass cockpits are not used enough. As an
> electrical/software engineer, I know that it is possible to pack every
> function of every glass cockpit ever created into one computer costing
> less than $1000US, but no one has done this yes. I think the reason has
> more to do with knowledge domain than anything else.
>
> The cost savings of having a commoditized machine control and monitor
> your plane would simply be enormous. The reduction in weight alone
> from eliminating the mechanical controls would be worth the change.
> But of course, there are so many more things that you can do with
> software that you simply can't do with mechanical controls. I saw a
> show recently where stealth pilots were acknowledging this fact, as if
> it were not obvious that computer can do things that a human simply
> cannot.
>
> I'm waiting for the day when someone gets rid of all these mechanical
> controls and run every thing with disposable, off-the-shelf, sensors
> and controls that connect to a (fail-safed) CPU that controls every
> thing, with 500GB of songs and videos on board, measurements of all
> kinds, 3-D render of atmosphere, maps, climate control, lighting,
> auto-pilot, software radios, monitoring systems (to make sure I'm
> awake), web cam, whatever...
>
> It's not like the eqipment to do this today does not already exist.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>

You want to give up the stick and rudder to the CPU too? I think I'd like
to hang on to that. Everything else might be ok except I'd like some analog
redundancy.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

jls wrote:
> You want to give up the stick and rudder to the CPU too? I think I'd like
> to hang on to that. Everything else might be ok except I'd like some analog
> redundancy.

Hmm...I've thought about the stick and rudder problem quite a bit, and
the irrational part of me says keep the mechanics, but the rational
part of me says that electronics will do the job. If the system is
designed correctly, it will operate correctly, even when it's broken.

I'd probably design system with so much redundancy that, if you crashed
as result of fault, God probably wanted you to crash anyway.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Smitty Two]

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

> jls wrote:
> > You want to give up the stick and rudder to the CPU too? I think I'd like
> > to hang on to that. Everything else might be ok except I'd like some analog
> > redundancy.
>
> Hmm...I've thought about the stick and rudder problem quite a bit, and
> the irrational part of me says keep the mechanics, but the rational
> part of me says that electronics will do the job. If the system is
> designed correctly, it will operate correctly, even when it's broken.
>
> I'd probably design system with so much redundancy that, if you crashed
> as result of fault, God probably wanted you to crash anyway.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

The first word in the name of this particular newsgroup is
*recreational.* We like to FLY. Flying involves considerably more than
being above the surface of the earth, moving from one place to another,
and looking out the window. Autopilots are for airliners. Go ahead and
give me a glass cockpit with ANALOG displays, but make sure I have to
tap on the simulated faceplates covering the simulated needles once in a
while to keep them moving. And leave the damn stick alone, you pesky
meddling heretic. (Insert emoticon representing friendly warning snarl
here.)

[[email protected]]

Thank you so much that you gave us more advice.
Yes, quality is the most importance in our country. Chinese
manufacturers realise it these years. They are working hard to follow
world's step.
I should emphasized that we have a strong air industry. China has
developed their air for more than 50 years. The foreigner know a little
about Chinese air industry. We sell a few air products to the abroad.
Since we don't know what are air requirement of foreigners. The
foreigners don't know we had a strong technical powers in this fields.
Just to see our aircraft instruments which I had sold them to the
abroad markets for more than 15 years. Maybe you had seen our products,
maybe you used them. Our products quality is better in Ultralight
fields.
Please see our Web: http://www.ming-da.com

I wish to learn more comment to improve our products. Since pilot is
our finial customers. They have a full experience to comment our
products.
I have done international trade for more than 20 years. I knew our
country's industry well. I am so interesting in air field. Althought I
have not pilot licence which it need 8 months to study with
USD15,000.00 in China. I have no time to do it. I wish one day I fly
with my plane.

Luo

[Evan Carew]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>I just wondered which kinds of digital meters, electric analog or
>>numeric meter, do pilot can accept. Or we can accept an electric analog
>>meter with digital number in it?
>
>
> Several responders have pointed out the superior visual cue that an
> analog meter makes over a digital read-out, which I completely agree
> with.
>
> However, I do think that glass cockpits are not used enough. As an
> electrical/software engineer, I know that it is possible to pack every
> function of every glass cockpit ever created into one computer costing
> less than $1000US, but no one has done this yes. I think the reason has
> more to do with knowledge domain than anything else.
Not really, economics does come into play as well. Consider that if you
could produce a custom electrical package with a nice looking LCD for
~$1000 USD, that you'd still have to arrange to sell it through
distributors, and those guys often want to charge 100% over what you are
charging them. To make matters more interesting, agreements with such
distributors often require you to set a "list price" which is about what
they want to charge at retail (so you don't steal their sales).

Funny enough, this price starts to look awfully like what dynon & the
other workalikes are selling for.

Evan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFERTtXpxCQXwV2bJARAoekAJ92WDHoljIXSbEkBDuCE2 goN8oOPgCgmrwL
gbMyiIbG+omjm4rAcB4BGbU=
=O/bd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, wrote:

> ... Whether > it is habit we can not accept digital meters.
> For example quartz crystal watch, we almost accept it now...

Human factors studies dating back half a century show that our visual
sensory systems are most finely attuned to perception of angular
displacement and angular rate.

That is one of the things that makes it possible for most amateurs to
make straight wings; for folks with normal eyesight, sighting across
the top edges of two airfoil templates will easily get you below
1/4-degree of twist, and for most airplanes that's about as close as it
matters.

When it comes to input devices, analog meters are superior to digital
readouts in most of the aspects that matter for aviation instruments.
We are naturally very good at perceiving angular displacement and
angular rate at a glance.

We are also very good at applying "native calculus" to angular
information. One of the things we do almost without noticing is observe
the angular position, angular rate, and even angular acceleration of a
needle such as on the airspeed indicator, and integrate all of that
stuff to effect a smooth leveling-off from a climb.

It has been said that most folks prefer analog watches because they
don't really care what time it is, all they want to know is how long
it's going to be until their next temporal milestone. And the fastest
way to get that information is to observe that you have a 90-degree
minute sweep until your next appointment, and quickly filter that with
your learned understanding of how much you can get done within the 15
minutes represented by those 90 degrees.

All of that facility with angular input comes from our heritage as both
predator and prey. Those of our ancestors who could throw a rock and
bring down game, those who could detect a dangerous carnivore hidden
within a clump of swaying grass, they survived and prospered. That goes
back to my conviction that, if there is intelligent design, then
natural selection is in fact the set of rules that makes it happen.

Anyhow, when you look at your digital watch, you have to execute a
whole bunch of arithmetic gymnastics that you are programmed to learn,
but which are much less tightly wired into your brain. Suddenly you
find yourself subracting 8:45 from 9:00 in minute notation, achieving
the result of :15, and then interpolating that with your learned
understanding of how much you can get done in 15 minutes. It's not that
much harder than with the analog device, but it _is_ enough harder that
when split seconds count you can notice the difference.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thank you Mr. Richard, Denny.
> Please not be sick of my more questions.
> >From your opinion, you like "needle" meters. I want to know why most of
> digital manufacturers made numeric readouts. I think they have
> investigated markets, and then they done these kinds of products. Since
> I browsed aircraftspure catalogues. I found numeric readout digital
> meters stand in front of selling catalogue. I guessed there are a lot
> of people buy and use them. Maybe I am wrong.
>
> Luo
>
Not necessarily wrong--or right.

Numeric digital meters have been around for quite a while. When the concept
was new, a solid state analog display was prohibitively expensive--where it
was even available. So, if the requirement was only to obtain a steady
state reading and write it in a book or log, they worked just fine and
eliminated parallax and any disagreement between technicians interpolating
the numbers. In addition, many meters had a "peak hold" function which
could preserve peak values until they could be copied from the face of the
meter. Even 25 years ago, seven segment displays were cheap, bright, and
readable; and, with the available rubber cover, the package could be dropped
on a concrete floor without damage or loss of accuracy.

Besides, when we needed to tune anything, or watch anything dynamic, we
could still get the old analog meter from the shelf, supply room, or truck.
So, no one really ever converted to digital readouts--but they are really
rugged, light, and useful for some tasks.

At the moment, I can think of a few places in an aircraft cockpit where
digital flight instrument readouts are acceptable, and even useful, but none
where they have a clear advantage.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Smitty Two wrote:
> The first word in the name of this particular newsgroup is
> *recreational.* We like to FLY. Flying involves considerably more than
> being above the surface of the earth, moving from one place to another,
> and looking out the window. Autopilots are for airliners. Go ahead and
> give me a glass cockpit with ANALOG displays, but make sure I have to
> tap on the simulated faceplates covering the simulated needles once in a
> while to keep them moving. And leave the damn stick alone, you pesky
> meddling heretic. (Insert emoticon representing friendly warning snarl
> here.)

Ok, I have a confession to make. I have wild dreams of making my own
flying "vehicle". Yes I know, I'm a lune, but being a lune has never
stopped a man from dreaming.

In such flying vehicle, I had always intended to add new
pseudo-digital, mechanical controls controls to compensate for getting
rid of most of the conventionaly mechanical analog controls. Everytime
I see the inside of a conventional aircraft, I can't help but think
that the whole thing could be done so much lighter, cheaper, etc.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Morgans]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote

> Ok, I have a confession to make. I have wild dreams of making my own
> flying "vehicle". Yes I know, I'm a lune, but being a lune has never
> stopped a man from dreaming.

Here, we call that "fly by wire", and for a small airplane, there is no
possible way to make that lighter than you could make conventional controls.
You will need to have back-up, triple redundancy; all of the controls
multiplied times three will start to get heavy.

You need to look at, and study AC 43.13-1B, found at faa.gov under Advisory
Circulars. It shows how to build or repair airplanes, in an accepted,
airworthy manner.

Controls built like that will be much lighter, and more reliable than you
could build fly by wire for small aircraft.

Good luck on your dream, and getting to be allowed to do that, in China.
--
Jim in NC

[Stealth Pilot]

On 18 Apr 2006 00:44:55 -0700, wrote:

>Thank you so much that you gave us more advice.
>Yes, quality is the most importance in our country. Chinese
>manufacturers realise it these years. They are working hard to follow
>world's step.
>I should emphasized that we have a strong air industry. China has
>developed their air for more than 50 years. The foreigner know a little
>about Chinese air industry. We sell a few air products to the abroad.
>Since we don't know what are air requirement of foreigners. The
>foreigners don't know we had a strong technical powers in this fields.
>Just to see our aircraft instruments which I had sold them to the
>abroad markets for more than 15 years. Maybe you had seen our products,
>maybe you used them. Our products quality is better in Ultralight
>fields.
>Please see our Web: http://www.ming-da.com
>

that directional gyro-electric in the bottom left of the page looks
amazingly like an artificial horizon.

[Smitty Two]

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

> Smitty Two wrote:
> > The first word in the name of this particular newsgroup is
> > *recreational.* We like to FLY. Flying involves considerably more than
> > being above the surface of the earth, moving from one place to another,
> > and looking out the window. Autopilots are for airliners. Go ahead and
> > give me a glass cockpit with ANALOG displays, but make sure I have to
> > tap on the simulated faceplates covering the simulated needles once in a
> > while to keep them moving. And leave the damn stick alone, you pesky
> > meddling heretic. (Insert emoticon representing friendly warning snarl
> > here.)
>
> Ok, I have a confession to make. I have wild dreams of making my own
> flying "vehicle". Yes I know, I'm a lune, but being a lune has never
> stopped a man from dreaming.
>
> In such flying vehicle, I had always intended to add new
> pseudo-digital, mechanical controls controls to compensate for getting
> rid of most of the conventionaly mechanical analog controls. Everytime
> I see the inside of a conventional aircraft, I can't help but think
> that the whole thing could be done so much lighter, cheaper, etc.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Let's be careful with our choice of words, lest we cast murkiness
instead of illumination.

Flight *instruments* monitor what's going on. Those things display
airspeed, altitude, attitude, heading, rate of climb. Engine
*instruments* tell us what's happening with the engine, or at least part
of that info. At a minimum, RPM and oil temperature, and often times
many other parameters.

Additional instruments include those for communication and navigation.

Now we have engine *controls* like the throttle, mixture, and carb heat,
at a minimum.

And then flight *controls* which are really the only things strictly
required to fly. Those are the movable surfaces of the plane and the
mechanical linkages that the pilot manipulates in order to move those
surfaces, and hence *control* the planes attitude, and, thus, it's path
through space.

Now, others on this board will doubtless contend with some of *my* word
choices and explanations, and I readily concede that I'm not even close
to being among the most experienced or knowledgeable pilots in the
virtual room.

Nevertheless, in the English language, and amongst pilots, there is a
substantial difference between a *control* and an *instrument.* I'm
guessing that you're using the word "control" when you mean "instrument."

Many pilots love the simplicity, elegance, and nostalgia of "steam
gauges" -- the old, individual, three dimensional, panel-mounted
instruments. And, many also have no objection to updating some of that
stuff with LCD displays, particularly if the newer technology can do the
same job with substantial savings of cost, time, weight, and complexity,
while offering increased reliability.

In *that* endeavor, you have my blessing. But I'd restrain the idea of
pushing a left turn button on the panel that sends a radio signal to
some little motors in the wings and tail to make the control surfaces
move, to your nighttime "dreaming."

[[email protected]]

I think we're being told a lot of digital stuff is "better"
when it really isn't in some ways. Digital stuff is much cheaper to
manufacture, because machines can assemble almost the entire thing,
while analog devices have small moving parts that usually need to be
put together by hand. The profit on digital equipment must be a lot
higher, especially on the cheap stuff.
I can't use digital meters while troubleshooting electrical
problems. The digital VOM I can afford only samples the voltage or
whatever about once a second, making any rapid adjustments or quick
readings impossible. The old analog meter goes immediately to the value
and shows any changes instantly. In cold weather the LCD digital
display gets sleepy but my mechanical needle still works faithfully.

Dan

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Smitty Two wrote:
> Let's be careful with our choice of words, lest we cast murkiness
> instead of illumination.
[snipped]
> Many pilots love the simplicity, elegance, and nostalgia of "steam
> gauges" -- the old, individual, three dimensional, panel-mounted
> instruments. And, many also have no objection to updating some of that
> stuff with LCD displays, particularly if the newer technology can do the
> same job with substantial savings of cost, time, weight, and complexity,
> while offering increased reliability.
>
> In *that* endeavor, you have my blessing. But I'd restrain the idea of
> pushing a left turn button on the panel that sends a radio signal to
> some little motors in the wings and tail to make the control surfaces
> move, to your nighttime "dreaming."

Yes proper nomenclature is really important. But in fact, I do mean
both the instruments and the controls. They should be brought as deep
into the digital domain as possible. Again, as an electrical/software
engineer (but not a pilot), I am biased. When I look into the cockpit
of an aircraift, I see opportunity for greater efficiency almost
everywhere. Certain questions that must be asked about conventional
instruments and controls would simply never get asked in the digital
domain.

Semiconductors fatigue. Their parts don't vibrate. They are not as
susceptible to variations in moisture and other environmental factors.
If I were to go dig out an old 1984 IBM PC from my schools computer lab
closet and flip the switch, it might not start, but that would be due
to rust on the mechanics. I could take the board out, put it in a
non-rusty case, power it, and it will boot. And it will compute up to
4.77 million instructions per second thereafter, and continue to do so
for 1000 years provided I did not drop or fry it.

This is why I believe that heavy metal will eventually give way to a
lightweight composites and plastics. The value proposition is just to
great to ignore.

It would be much more exciting if someone were to just do much of it at
once rather than spread the transition out over 50 years.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Peter Dohm]

------------much snipping----------
> Semiconductors fatigue. Their parts don't vibrate. They are not as
> susceptible to variations in moisture and other environmental factors.
> If I were to go dig out an old 1984 IBM PC from my schools computer lab
> closet and flip the switch, it might not start, but that would be due
> to rust on the mechanics. I could take the board out, put it in a
> non-rusty case, power it, and it will boot. And it will compute up to
> 4.77 million instructions per second thereafter, and continue to do so
> for 1000 years provided I did not drop or fry it.
>
They are certainly more repeatable over a modest period of time. However,
it is my understanding that the molecules in the critical substrates do
migrate over time, and also due to temperature and electrical events. So,
presuming that "normal" operation was not too close to any critical speed,
voltage, or temperature; the 21 years since 1984, or a few more years into
the future, should not be troublesome. However, 1000 years really is taking
"poetic lecense" over the top.

[Peter Dohm]

> I think we're being told a lot of digital stuff is "better"
> when it really isn't in some ways. Digital stuff is much cheaper to
> manufacture, because machines can assemble almost the entire thing,
> while analog devices have small moving parts that usually need to be
> put together by hand. The profit on digital equipment must be a lot
> higher, especially on the cheap stuff.
> I can't use digital meters while troubleshooting electrical
> problems. The digital VOM I can afford only samples the voltage or
> whatever about once a second, making any rapid adjustments or quick
> readings impossible. The old analog meter goes immediately to the value
> and shows any changes instantly. In cold weather the LCD digital
> display gets sleepy but my mechanical needle still works faithfully.
>
> Dan
>
Good points, one and all. And my experience as well.

Peter

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Evan Carew wrote:
> could produce a custom electrical package with a nice looking LCD for
> ~$1000 USD, that you'd still have to arrange to sell it through
> distributors, and those guys often want to charge 100% over what you are
> charging them. To make matters more interesting, agreements with such
> distributors often require you to set a "list price" which is about what
> they want to charge at retail (so you don't steal their sales).
>
> Funny enough, this price starts to look awfully like what dynon & the
> other workalikes are selling for.

I would distribute over the Internet if that started to happen.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
> Here, we call that "fly by wire", and for a small airplane, there is no
> possible way to make that lighter than you could make conventional
> controls. You will need to have back-up, triple redundancy; all of the
> controls multiplied times three will start to get heavy.


"Fly by Bluetooth"

Hello, 21st Century calling.


Montblack-and-blue :-)

[Smitty Two]

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

> Again, as an electrical/software
> engineer (but not a pilot), I am biased.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

And therein lies the crux of the issue. What is possible is one thing.
What is desirable and marketable is another. Try this experiment: Go
find someone riding a motorcycle, and offer him a suitcase full of bus
tickets in exchange for his bike. Or someone waiting in line for a
roller coaster ride, and offer to walk him directly over to the coaster
exit area to save him the bother of doing all that riding just to get
there.

And then, please, go take a few flying lessons. Airliners already have
all the stuff you're talking about, and GA neither needs it, nor, more
importantly, wants it. If we get to the point where people really are
commuting to work by the millions in little skycars, then perhaps your
ideas will have some merit.

[Ernest Christley]

wrote:
> Thank you Mr. Richard, Denny.
> Please not be sick of my more questions.
>>From your opinion, you like "needle" meters. I want to know why most of
> digital manufacturers made numeric readouts. I think they have
> investigated markets, and then they done these kinds of products. Since
> I browsed aircraftspure catalogues. I found numeric readout digital
> meters stand in front of selling catalogue. I guessed there are a lot
> of people buy and use them. Maybe I am wrong.
>
> Luo
>

Digital instruments are easy to program and don't take much computing
resources. Converting the display to a form fit for human consumption
take more computing and programming horsepower.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Peter Dohm]

--------snip---------
>
> Digital instruments are easy to program and don't take much computing
> resources. Converting the display to a form fit for human consumption
> take more computing and programming horsepower.
>
Exactly right. Plus two additional problems:
1) Most modern general purpose computers have voluminous operating
systems and take too much time to cold start (or boot up), even if ROM is
substituted for the disk drive. That means a lot more programming.
2) Presently, there is too little standardization, especially of the NAV
equipment. And integration of the NAV display(s) is a major reason for
considering electronic displays.

So it's not that we necessarily prefer mechanical instruments, but we
certainly have reason to demand that any replacement be at least as good in
all ways important to a pilot, such as:
1) Ease of comprehension.
2) Similarity of controls and displays in aircraft a pilot might fly.
3) Redundancy--at least as good as our old electrical plus vacuum.
4) Immunity from "wash out" in direct sunlight.

[Roger]

On 16 Apr 2006 23:44:47 -0700, wrote:

Who's We?

>We used to mechanical instruments when we learnt fly in school. Whether
>it is habit we can not accept digital meters. For example quartz

"We" sure can. I took my first lesson in 1963 and I much prefer the
glass panels that are now available.

>crystal watch, we almost accept it now. There few people using
>mechanical watch. I think it is developing direction for digital
>meters.
>I just wondered which kinds of digital meters, electric analog or
>numeric meter, do pilot can accept. Or we can accept an electric analog
>meter with digital number in it?

There are things where analog is easier on the eyes even in a glass
panel. For instance, the AI, is a graphical representation. Glide
slope is graphical while airspeed is digital. Heading can be either
as long is it can be read.

If "we" start out using only the basics of the glass panel and slowly
move up instead of trying to use everything right at the start, they
are relatively simple. I find the flight instruments easier to use
and scan than I do the old steam gages. OTOH there is no
standardization between GPS or MFD manufacturers which can complicate
things a bit and some are a bit less than intuitive.

Still, in the long run they are easier to use and more reliable than
the old mechanical panels. I'd put one in my Deb except the panel
would then be worth more than the airplane.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:33:50 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>--------snip---------

Didn't we just go through this.
>>
>> Digital instruments are easy to program and don't take much computing
>> resources. Converting the display to a form fit for human consumption
>> take more computing and programming horsepower.

But it is still very little compared to a PC. With today's "stuff" an
old 6502 would probably have enough power.
>>
>Exactly right. Plus two additional problems:
>1) Most modern general purpose computers have voluminous operating

What do general purpose computers have to do with flight displays.

>systems and take too much time to cold start (or boot up), even if ROM is

Actually the operating systems can start in seconds. It's all the
other stuff they have to load and interface with that takes the time.

>substituted for the disk drive. That means a lot more programming.

Programs for flight displays should be relatively simple. Compared to
a "windows" or "Mac" they should be extremely simple.

>2) Presently, there is too little standardization, especially of the NAV

With this I agree to a point, but to say too little? There isn't any!

>equipment. And integration of the NAV display(s) is a major reason for
>considering electronic displays.
>
>So it's not that we necessarily prefer mechanical instruments, but we
>certainly have reason to demand that any replacement be at least as good in
>all ways important to a pilot, such as:
>1) Ease of comprehension.

Glass panel

>2) Similarity of controls and displays in aircraft a pilot might fly.

Actually with most using Garmin there is a lot of similarity, but for
those moving between different systems it can be more than a little
confusing.

>3) Redundancy--at least as good as our old electrical plus vacuum.
>4) Immunity from "wash out" in direct sunlight.
>
A properly configured system should have none of these problems.
LCDs can be constructed to be easily viewable in direct sunlight.

>
Glass panels are more reliable, and once the pilot becomes proficient
with one they are easier to interpret than the old mechanical gages. A
good MFD with The AI, Heading, airspeed and altitude is far easier to
scan than mechanical gages.

Taken in logical order and one step at a time instead of trying to do
everything on the first flight, they are easy to learn as well. The
confusion comes when a pilot jumps into a plane with an unfamiliar
system and then tries to use all the bells and whistles instead of
just flying around for a while getting aquatinted with the system.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> --------snip---------
> >
> > Digital instruments are easy to program and don't take much computing
> > resources. Converting the display to a form fit for human consumption
> > take more computing and programming horsepower.
> >
> Exactly right. Plus two additional problems:
> 1) Most modern general purpose computers have voluminous operating
> systems and take too much time to cold start (or boot up), even if ROM is
> substituted for the disk drive. That means a lot more programming.

I think if you're about to take a trip, waiting the whole 17 seconds
for the OS to boot (Windows) won't hurt too much.

> 2) Presently, there is too little standardization, especially of the NAV
> equipment. And integration of the NAV display(s) is a major reason for
> considering electronic displays.

This is true. Also, I have looked at some of the gadgets that are
produced by Garmin (and Raymarine for you boat-lovers). I think it is
important to realize that, when a software engineer at one of these
companies sits down to make software for their gadgets, the complexity
presented to them is often more than that which is presented to someone
who programs a regular PC. This started changing a bit when Microsoft
started selling embedded versions of their OS's, and now, a
full-feature version of XP that is meant for embedded system. Yet
still, there are many devices that uses unconventional hardware, and
then hire programmers to work really hard to tweak it just right.

Compare that to going to a young programmer who knows how to make fancy
graphics on standard PC using C++, and you can see the difference.
S/he would probably be able to create almost anything you can imagine,
with much, much less cost than there would be with custom device. I
cannot emphasize enough that the young people who program and know
computer graphics can create graphical presentations that are far
beyond what Garmin is currently making. And everytime you get into a
simulator that is rendered by a digital display showing analog
controls, you are convincing yourself that it is "ok" that the analog
controls are rendered digitally.

But again, the real power comes from the possibility of letting the
computer open up more of your plane and your environment to you.

> So it's not that we necessarily prefer mechanical instruments, but we
> certainly have reason to demand that any replacement be at least as good in
> all ways important to a pilot, such as:
> 1) Ease of comprehension.
> 2) Similarity of controls and displays in aircraft a pilot might fly.
> 3) Redundancy--at least as good as our old electrical plus vacuum.
> 4) Immunity from "wash out" in direct sunlight.

True about the redundancy. We can't have a bad transistor bringing
down the aircraft. But digital sensors are cheap, lightweight, and and
accurate. If it fails, the computer will know immediately. With
standard interfaces like USB, it would be a simple matter of finding
the faulty part, throwing it in trash (as opposed to repairing it), and
replacing it with a new one. The computer would tell you if the new
one is OK.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Peter Dohm]

>
> Didn't we just go through this.
> >>
> >> Digital instruments are easy to program and don't take much computing
> >> resources. Converting the display to a form fit for human consumption
> >> take more computing and programming horsepower.
>
> But it is still very little compared to a PC. With today's "stuff" an
> old 6502 would probably have enough power.
> >>
> >Exactly right. Plus two additional problems:
> >1) Most modern general purpose computers have voluminous operating
>
> What do general purpose computers have to do with flight displays.
>
With reasonable luck, nothing.


> >systems and take too much time to cold start (or boot up), even if ROM is
>
> Actually the operating systems can start in seconds. It's all the
> other stuff they have to load and interface with that takes the time.

This may be a semantic argument, but we seem to agree that starting with a
general purpose computer and OS would be less than obtimal--to understate
the situation.

>
> >substituted for the disk drive. That means a lot more programming.
>
> Programs for flight displays should be relatively simple. Compared to
> a "windows" or "Mac" they should be extremely simple.
>
> >2) Presently, there is too little standardization, especially of the
NAV
>
> With this I agree to a point, but to say too little? There isn't any!
>
No argument there.

> >equipment. And integration of the NAV display(s) is a major reason for
> >considering electronic displays.
> >
> >So it's not that we necessarily prefer mechanical instruments, but we
> >certainly have reason to demand that any replacement be at least as good
in
> >all ways important to a pilot, such as:
> >1) Ease of comprehension.
>
> Glass panel
>
Actually, I agree with you. My point related back to the OP, which seemed
to ask whether our preference for an analog airspeed indicator (as an
example) was merely habitual, or the result of a true preference based on
the nature of use. Obviously the latter, as others described at length
earlier in the thread.

In point of fact, at my rate of progress toward getting a project under way,
I will almost certainly have a glass panel system installed prior to initial
completion; and for all of the usually cited reasons: lighter weight, lower
cost, more advantageous display format, and equal or better redundancy and
reliability of the complete system.

> >2) Similarity of controls and displays in aircraft a pilot might fly.
>
> Actually with most using Garmin there is a lot of similarity, but for
> those moving between different systems it can be more than a little
> confusing.
>
Exactly.
> >3) Redundancy--at least as good as our old electrical plus vacuum.
> >4) Immunity from "wash out" in direct sunlight.
> >
> A properly configured system should have none of these problems.
> LCDs can be constructed to be easily viewable in direct sunlight.
>
True. It just needs to be included as a specification--no matter how
confident anyone is that "everyone knows."

I own both a mid-range digital camera and one of the supposedly better
camera equiped cellular phones. Both are from respected manufacturers and
the displays become useless in something less than real direct sunlight. I
own other devices that share the problem; however the two that I mentioned
were purchased with the idea that I could use them outdoors...

> >
> Glass panels are more reliable, and once the pilot becomes proficient
> with one they are easier to interpret than the old mechanical gages. A
> good MFD with The AI, Heading, airspeed and altitude is far easier to
> scan than mechanical gages.
>

My only disagreement with you here is one of nomenclature. I believe that
the AI, heading and airspeed are part of what is now being called the
Primary Instrument Display or possibly the Primary Flight Display. Most NAV
data would be part of the MFD, and a lot of redundancy is gained when the
fuctions can be swapped or overlayed in the case of a display failure. I
believe that (display swapping) means of redundancy was first developed for
military use, but has since gained fairly wide acceptance.

In many cases, little if any transition time will be needed when the display
is essentially similar. And there is an added benefit that the display
capability previously available only for fighters and heavy transports can
be economical in light singles in terms of both weight and cost.

> Taken in logical order and one step at a time instead of trying to do
> everything on the first flight, they are easy to learn as well. The
> confusion comes when a pilot jumps into a plane with an unfamiliar
> system and then tries to use all the bells and whistles instead of
> just flying around for a while getting aquatinted with the system.
>
Especially dtrue for the current range of NAV equipment; and probably the
radar and COM equipment as well.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> > What do general purpose computers have to do with flight displays.
> >
> With reasonable luck, nothing.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss general purpose computers for flight
displays. Note that the richest man in the world got their by making
software for general purpose computers. It's precisely because of
their generic nature that people like them so much. Each person sees
in it what s/he wants, and it does a very good job of being that. And
when it doesn't, they pay an extra $300 for one that does.

A couple of decades ago, some could complain about performance, but
that's no longer the case. For example, each time you pop up Windows
Medial Player and view the psychadelic twirly things, the computer is
computing highly intensive real-time Fast-Fourier Transforms (FFT"s) on
the sound that is being heard. What's suprising is that you can play
10 of these audio files at once on a mid-range (< $1000) PC, and not
only will it work, but you can still type in Microsoft Word as if
nothing were happening.

Considering this, I seriously doubt that there is any computation that
at standard, $500 Dell PC couldn't handle from an aircraft.

In fact, a more likely scenario in an aircraft would be that the
computer could:

* show altitude, IAS, TAS, average velocity, average acceleration, etc.
* show stress all over aircraft as colors correlated to degree of
stress on parts
* show air pressure, humidity, etc.
* control fuel efficiency with exact precision
* play videos
* play music with psychedelic twirly things
* have voice-over-IP (VOIP) conversation with 9 other air-borne pilots
simultaneously
* render 3-D maps of terrain
* render 3-D map of airports
* render 3-D images of flight path
* show precipitation with little colored droplets and clouds
* record images terrain from web cam mounted underneath
* log flight data
* redisplay hotel information that was save in web page at airport
* control the heat warmers in seats
* control transparency of side windows
* control wattage of lights, internal and external
* show tire pressure
* show fuel level
* show oil level
* show hydraulic pressure
* control fuel mixture according to altitude, pressure, etc
* control throttle
* control, trim, pitch, yaw, roll
* control foot heaters
* control defoggers, wipers
* monitor pilot's face and do image recognition to see if s/he's dozing
off
* act as radio for ATC and other communications
* provide verbal warnings for unorthodox maneuvers and suggestions for
improvement
* synthesized verbal training based on actual conditions
* synthesized verbal read-out of current local atmospheric conditions
* synthesized verbal read-out of forthcoming atmospheric conditions
20-miles out
* show 3-D map of all other aircraft in vicinity
* allow kids to play video game in back seats

You could get a bunch of Garmin engineers in a room and ask them to put
this into a customized "device" and wait forever for it to be finished
with a non-general purpose computer. Or you can say, "Hey everyone,
we're going to be controlling this aircraft with a PC", and let
engineers all over the world do what they are good at, then put it all
together. Note that putting it all together would involve putting a CD
in a general-purpose computer 15 times and waiting for SETUP.EXE to
finish.

PC + USB-based mechanical sensors and controls. A powerful
combination. :)

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Roger]

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 22:51:53 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>>
>> Didn't we just go through this.
>> >>
>> >> Digital instruments are easy to program and don't take much computing
>> >> resources. Converting the display to a form fit for human consumption
>> >> take more computing and programming horsepower.
>>
>> But it is still very little compared to a PC. With today's "stuff" an
>> old 6502 would probably have enough power.
>> >>
>> >Exactly right. Plus two additional problems:
>> >1) Most modern general purpose computers have voluminous operating
>>
>> What do general purpose computers have to do with flight displays.
>>
>With reasonable luck, nothing.
>
>
>> >systems and take too much time to cold start (or boot up), even if ROM is
>>
>> Actually the operating systems can start in seconds. It's all the
>> other stuff they have to load and interface with that takes the time.
>
>This may be a semantic argument, but we seem to agree that starting with a
>general purpose computer and OS would be less than obtimal--to understate
>the situation.

Agreed! It certainly would be "less than optimal" and that is one
drastic understatement.

When you look at what is required for I/O as well as the operating
system these are, or should be, extremely simple systems.
The Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) is something a third year CS
student should be capable of writing in assembler.

Prior to going back full time for a 4 year degree in CS I took quite a
few tech courses. One of the classes (Computer architecture and
design) required we write in machine language no less, a program to
monitor 4 lines in, control 4 lines out, flash a specific text on the
screen for each input line when it was opened, Operate an output line
corresponding to each input line state, have specific keys to
acknowledge the alarm state, stop the alarm message from flashing and
go to highlighted. When the alarm condition was removed the text on
the screen had to go back to a safe state for the specific line. How
much time did we have to write the program? About two hours as it was
on the final exam. BTW it was not only expected to run, but to exit
gracefully so it could be run again. All the programming input was
from an alpha numeric keypad in Hex.

The computing power for everything except the display would be very
basic. Even the displays which we think of as dynamic are small,
relatively low res, and with so little movement that the system could
*almost* treat them as static.

This is the type of programming that needs to be done in either
assembler or machine language to keep it compact. It is definitely not
for the "visual" languages. Maybe straight C which is *relatively* low
level.
..
>
>>
>> >substituted for the disk drive. That means a lot more programming.
>>
>> Programs for flight displays should be relatively simple. Compared to
>> a "windows" or "Mac" they should be extremely simple.
>>
>> >2) Presently, there is too little standardization, especially of the
>NAV
>>
>> With this I agree to a point, but to say too little? There isn't any!
>>
>No argument there.
>
>> >equipment. And integration of the NAV display(s) is a major reason for
>> >considering electronic displays.
>> >
>> >So it's not that we necessarily prefer mechanical instruments, but we
>> >certainly have reason to demand that any replacement be at least as good
>in
>> >all ways important to a pilot, such as:
>> >1) Ease of comprehension.
>>
>> Glass panel
>>
>Actually, I agree with you. My point related back to the OP, which seemed
>to ask whether our preference for an analog airspeed indicator (as an
>example) was merely habitual, or the result of a true preference based on
>the nature of use. Obviously the latter, as others described at length
>earlier in the thread.

Actually, I find the digital airspeed as easy to use as the analog and
the same is true for altitude and even VSI. The reason for this is the
lack of precision or rather the lack of need. If you have three
digits for airspeed and altitude the right most digit (most precision)
can be a blur while the second one is ticking away either up or down
and this is usually sufficient. In this case the pilot sees the
instrument very much like an analog unit. OTOH once you've gone that
far it requires little extra to create the analog graphic so you can
have both pretty much in the same spot and with much better
reliability than the old mechanical.

Still, there will be a certain % who just plain like the old
mechanical gages better. Of course with the younger generations you
may find many that prefer the electronic gages.
>
>In point of fact, at my rate of progress toward getting a project under way,
>I will almost certainly have a glass panel system installed prior to initial
>completion; and for all of the usually cited reasons: lighter weight, lower
>cost, more advantageous display format, and equal or better redundancy and
>reliability of the complete system.
>
Yup although a full, redundant, glass panel is considerably more
costly than the old steam gage panel. At least I haven't found one
yet that I'd consider less expensive. OTOH they may do a *lot* more.

For non-certified glass panels I want to know how they are programmed.
That in itself will tell me whether I want to purchase one or not.

Once purchased and installed, I'll be testing that panel as much as
the rest of the airplane during the required test phase.
>> >2) Similarity of controls and displays in aircraft a pilot might fly.
>>
>> Actually with most using Garmin there is a lot of similarity, but for
>> those moving between different systems it can be more than a little
>> confusing.
>>
>Exactly.
>> >3) Redundancy--at least as good as our old electrical plus vacuum.
>> >4) Immunity from "wash out" in direct sunlight.
>> >
>> A properly configured system should have none of these problems.
>> LCDs can be constructed to be easily viewable in direct sunlight.
>>
>True. It just needs to be included as a specification--no matter how
>confident anyone is that "everyone knows."
>
Been there, done that, and I know that "not everyone knows"<:-))

>I own both a mid-range digital camera and one of the supposedly better
>camera equiped cellular phones. Both are from respected manufacturers and
>the displays become useless in something less than real direct sunlight. I
>own other devices that share the problem; however the two that I mentioned
>were purchased with the idea that I could use them outdoors...

I have two digitals. An Olympus E-20N which is a great camera, but man
is that thing slow. The other is the Nikon D70 dSLR. Both work well
in direct sunlight, but I never use the LCD displays.

>
>> >
>> Glass panels are more reliable, and once the pilot becomes proficient
>> with one they are easier to interpret than the old mechanical gages. A
>> good MFD with The AI, Heading, airspeed and altitude is far easier to
>> scan than mechanical gages.
>>
>
>My only disagreement with you here is one of nomenclature. I believe that
>the AI, heading and airspeed are part of what is now being called the
>Primary Instrument Display or possibly the Primary Flight Display. Most NAV
>data would be part of the MFD, and a lot of redundancy is gained when the
>fuctions can be swapped or overlayed in the case of a display failure. I
>believe that (display swapping) means of redundancy was first developed for
>military use, but has since gained fairly wide acceptance.

No argument.
The system I'm looking at only has two screens and they are redundant
MFDs. You can set the PFD to either or both. You can even
compartmentalize the display and put the engine instruments on either
one or both. Why any one would want them all on one I don't know, but
it can be done say in case one display fails.
>
>In many cases, little if any transition time will be needed when the display
>is essentially similar. And there is an added benefit that the display
>capability previously available only for fighters and heavy transports can
>be economical in light singles in terms of both weight and cost.
>
>> Taken in logical order and one step at a time instead of trying to do
>> everything on the first flight, they are easy to learn as well. The
>> confusion comes when a pilot jumps into a plane with an unfamiliar
>> system and then tries to use all the bells and whistles instead of
>> just flying around for a while getting aquatinted with the system.
>>
>Especially dtrue for the current range of NAV equipment; and probably the
>radar and COM equipment as well.
>
Agreed and you now have the option of downloaded weather RADAR as well
which can be displayed as an overlay on the moving map display. I
sure would like something like that in the Deb but the panel would be
worth more than the plane. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On 20 Apr 2006 19:16:22 -0700, "Le Chaud Lapin"
> wrote:

>
>Peter Dohm wrote:
>> --------snip---------
>> >
>> > Digital instruments are easy to program and don't take much computing
>> > resources. Converting the display to a form fit for human consumption
>> > take more computing and programming horsepower.
>> >
>> Exactly right. Plus two additional problems:
>> 1) Most modern general purpose computers have voluminous operating
>> systems and take too much time to cold start (or boot up), even if ROM is
>> substituted for the disk drive. That means a lot more programming.
>
>I think if you're about to take a trip, waiting the whole 17 seconds
>for the OS to boot (Windows) won't hurt too much.
>
>> 2) Presently, there is too little standardization, especially of the NAV
>> equipment. And integration of the NAV display(s) is a major reason for
>> considering electronic displays.
>
>This is true. Also, I have looked at some of the gadgets that are
>produced by Garmin (and Raymarine for you boat-lovers). I think it is
>important to realize that, when a software engineer at one of these
>companies sits down to make software for their gadgets, the complexity
>presented to them is often more than that which is presented to someone
>who programs a regular PC. This started changing a bit when Microsoft
>started selling embedded versions of their OS's, and now, a

Even imbedded Windows is far too complex and particularly a full
featured version. That kind of complexity is neither needed or
desirable in a glass panel, or any of the instruments in that panel.
Windows was designed to be flexible and programmer friendly. The DLL
which is both its strong point and the weak point is the reason code
written to run in windows is generally so bulky. Often called "bloat
code" and for good reason. I still do some programming. One we
used in the home builders center for a few years. That program would
do a search on N#, Owner, Row and position where parked, Make and
model, Home town, State and even country although as you can imagine
the number of returns increased rapidly as we go through that list. .

The thing is I only had about 32K of source code, but when compiled
into a stand alone program it was many megabytes and virtually all of
that bloat came from DLLs.

>full-feature version of XP that is meant for embedded system. Yet
>still, there are many devices that uses unconventional hardware, and
>then hire programmers to work really hard to tweak it just right.

XP as an embedded OS is an oxymoron as the usual reason for embedding
is simplicity and compactness.

>
>Compare that to going to a young programmer who knows how to make fancy

Careful, that's age discrimination <:-)) There are a few of us old
guys out there that do that kind of programming too.

>graphics on standard PC using C++, and you can see the difference.
>S/he would probably be able to create almost anything you can imagine,
>with much, much less cost than there would be with custom device. I

These are "Object Oriented" languages and much of the work is already
done.

>cannot emphasize enough that the young people who program and know

There you go with that age thing again.

>computer graphics can create graphical presentations that are far
>beyond what Garmin is currently making. And everytime you get into a

And there is a big reason for that. It's called available memory and
the available memory is constrained by the actual design. GPS, MFDs,
and other electronic displays in the cockpit need to be kept simple.
Certified instruments need a minimum of code to be certified so the
smaller the better.

The complete OS in a glass panel probably contains less code than just
one DLL in windows. The BIOS is going to be just about the absolute
minimum to get the job done.

They want to keep the memory "density" down as well as using the
minimum number of chips.

>simulator that is rendered by a digital display showing analog
>controls, you are convincing yourself that it is "ok" that the analog
>controls are rendered digitally.

To me that makes no sense, but I'm sure it does to some.
I don't care how the thing is rendered, whether it's a needle mounted
on bearings or a graphic display showing a needle. They are both
analog displays. One just happens to be an analog display that was
digitally rendered.
>
>But again, the real power comes from the possibility of letting the
>computer open up more of your plane and your environment to you.

Here it depends on how the information is used and how it's presented.
There is nothing in a light plane that requires much computing power.
That remains true if you use a glass panel and render every single
instrument digitally, or add strain gages to monitor the health of the
fuselage. Add GPS, moving map display, weather RADAR, inertial nav
with solid state gyros as a back up to the GPS. With the exception
of the display (which is handled separately) it's quite likely the old
Commodore 64 or even a VIC 20 would have had enough computing power
for the job.
>
We need to be careful about what we put into our panels. Software for
PCs has been in a vicious cycle for some years now where the software
manages to use up all of the computing power which leads to more
powerful CPUS which lead to more powerful computers which leads to
larger programs. When we were limited by computing resources, bloat
code wasn't a problem as it didn't exist. Side effects (unexpected
results) were minimal as there were few modules interacting with each
other in programs.

Most students become intimately aquatinted with side effects when they
start working with pointers. It was great in the old straight C
programming days as C made the assumption the programmer knew what
they were doing and would let you do virtually anything. Today's
languages are strongly typed. That means you can only add an integer
to an integer. You can only use floating points with floating points
and addresses (pointers) with addresses. Straight C let you add an
integer to a floating point to an address to a string or any thing
else you can imagine.

For a number of reasons we have to keep the code used in aircraft
compact. Just two reasons are safety/reliability and ease of
certification.

>> So it's not that we necessarily prefer mechanical instruments, but we
>> certainly have reason to demand that any replacement be at least as good in
>> all ways important to a pilot, such as:
>> 1) Ease of comprehension.
>> 2) Similarity of controls and displays in aircraft a pilot might fly.
>> 3) Redundancy--at least as good as our old electrical plus vacuum.
>> 4) Immunity from "wash out" in direct sunlight.
>
>True about the redundancy. We can't have a bad transistor bringing
>down the aircraft. But digital sensors are cheap, lightweight, and and

Not when they are certified for use in aircraft. They may be light
weight and accurate, but adding them to an aircraft took away the
"cheap"

>accurate. If it fails, the computer will know immediately. With

Only if the system is programmed to know and how are you going to
program it to know. An open or shorted sensor is just another input
unless there are valid limits programmed into the system. But that is
not enough either. The system has to have a way of notifying the
pilot that the oil pressure, or CHT, or EGT reading has gone bad AND
it's the sensor, not the actual oil pressure that had gone. Zero oil
pressure and an open or shorted sensor may and probably will appear
the same to the input of the A/D converter. It has to do this
immediately, but without interrupting, or obscuring vital data the
pilot may need at the moment. Sure it can be done and reliably, but
each step adds complexity and cost.

>standard interfaces like USB, it would be a simple matter of finding
>the faulty part, throwing it in trash (as opposed to repairing it), and
>replacing it with a new one. The computer would tell you if the new
>one is OK.

The problem is that what looks good when it is used here on the desk
may not be good for us out there in the real world. What appears
simple at first glance, isn't, or what appears simple with the system
on my desk isn't out in the real world. It's best to think of it this
way. If it looks simple it probably isn't, you don't have enough data,
or you forgot something.

Right now I'm setting in front of a 20.1" (gotta remember that point
one) LCD which is driven from a video card that will also serve as an
output to my TV, take signals from the TV, has a tuner for off the air
signals, has S-video inputs and outputs as well as composite and
digital. That video card is in a 64 bit computer with more on board
cache than my first computer had memory. The computer has over 1.6
terabytes of hard drive storage. My computers back up to each other
across a gigabit, hard wired CAT5e network. I use external hard drives
connected via USB for OS backup. I use USB2 for camera and memory
card input. With all that sophistication, absolutely none of this
would be worth beans in an airplane.

BTW as a side note. This big computer cost less than half my first
computer which was a one MHz 6502 with 48K of dynamic RAM and dual
360K, 8" floppies and that was before getting a monitor and keyboard.
The whole system here didn't cost a lot more than that first simple
computer.
>
>-Le Chaud Lapin-

The point I'm trying to make is for glass panels the code is kept as
compact as possible which means custom software that has to be
certified. These things are a long way from what sits on our desks.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[cavelamb]

My primary concern with the glass panel in light planes is -

what happens when the lights go off?

My antiquated mechanical steam powered gizmos will still work.

If the airspeed indicator clams up, the altimeter still works.

There was once an old saying about putting all your eggs in one
basket - You can do it, but you have to watch that basket carefully.


Richard

[Morgans]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote

> I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss general purpose computers for flight
> displays. Note that the richest man in the world got their by making
> software for general purpose computers.

> PC + USB-based mechanical sensors and controls. A powerful
> combination. :)

Is anyone (besides me) beginning to think that we are on the receiving end
of a real practical joker?

Too many things don't add up. Statements about things in China that are not
realistic, or possible. (homebuilt airplanes in China? I don't think so.)

Use of English that is on a level that someone might expect for a poster
from China, then this last bit of this post. No mistakes, use of phrases
and English vocabulary (psychedelic twirly things?) that would not be
typical of a foreigner, unless they had very good control of English, then
there would not have been all of the earlier mistakes.

Totally far out ideas, that nobody would want to even consider, and for
someone making instruments, they would have a better idea of what is desired
and possible.

There is more to make me come to this conclusion, but I don't feel like
going back and digging it all out.

I don't know about ya'll, but I've had enough of this one. Some of you can
continue to play, if you want, but not me.
--
Jim in NC

[Roger]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:08:31 GMT, cavelamb >
wrote:

>My primary concern with the glass panel in light planes is -
>
> what happens when the lights go off?
>
Battery backup.
You can have an internal back up that will keep the instruments
running for some time. Plenty of time to look for an airport and land
safely which I'd be doing with either type of gages. <:-))

>My antiquated mechanical steam powered gizmos will still work.
>
>If the airspeed indicator clams up, the altimeter still works.
You could carry it to the extreme like an F-16. If they lose power
they only have a few minutes to get on the ground before the computers
that fly the airplane quit.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com>
>There was once an old saying about putting all your eggs in one
>basket - You can do it, but you have to watch that basket carefully.
>
>
>Richard

[cavelamb]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote
>
>> I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss general purpose computers for flight
>> displays. Note that the richest man in the world got their by making
>> software for general purpose computers.
>
>
>> PC + USB-based mechanical sensors and controls. A powerful
>> combination. :)
>
>
> Is anyone (besides me) beginning to think that we are on the receiving
> end of a real practical joker?
>
> Too many things don't add up. Statements about things in China that are
> not realistic, or possible. (homebuilt airplanes in China? I don't think
> so.)
>
> Use of English that is on a level that someone might expect for a poster
> from China, then this last bit of this post. No mistakes, use of
> phrases and English vocabulary (psychedelic twirly things?) that would
> not be typical of a foreigner, unless they had very good control of
> English, then there would not have been all of the earlier mistakes.
>
> Totally far out ideas, that nobody would want to even consider, and for
> someone making instruments, they would have a better idea of what is
> desired and possible.
>
> There is more to make me come to this conclusion, but I don't feel like
> going back and digging it all out.
>
> I don't know about ya'll, but I've had enough of this one. Some of you
> can continue to play, if you want, but not me.



It crossed my mind...

[cavelamb]

This is a job for Assembly language.

There is just so much to do (more than you expect) and so
little time to do it in.

A modern team would probably prototype in C (+/-) but only to flesh
out what they were trying to do. Then they would start coding the
inner loops in Assembly until it ran fast enough (that's a joke!).

In the end, it winds up all Assembly anyway, just compiled rather
than assembled. And using the compilers STDLIB, rather than mine.


I dug up this old Clunky CGA graphics hack, but it demonstrates some
of the processing power (and the technique) needed to do vector graphics
for something like an attitude display.
This started out on a 16 Mhz AT.

I think it showcases my high speed line drawing routines quite well.
Which is really why it was written.
(one of my "acquired" computer skills - Multi-lingual programmer :)

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/HUD/HUD01.ASM
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~tp-1/HUD/HUD01.COM

Files:

HUD01.ASM 56192 bytes long.
Assembly language source code for a clunky CGA Heads Up Display Demo.
Straight forward assembly with MASM 5.1
Copyright reserved. Non commercial use (unless I get to play too)


HUD01.COM 4785 bytes long
Caution! Executable file!!!


It was clean when I put it up on the web, but you might take note of
the file size, and scan if you feel you should.

The slider displays (vertical read out?) are driven from the keyboard.
Top row - Q to P.
UC INCREASES, lc decreases.
G toggles the gear.
ESCAPE key to quit.

Flight is via the keypad keys: 1- 9

It does weird barrel rolls....


Richard


;Update header from HUD01.ASM
;======================= COMMENTS ========================
;
; Due to the large number of variables needed, and the rather limited
; register architecture of x-86 processors, all variables, flags, etc.
; are located in main memory. No attempt is made to keep certain things
; in specific registers. Subroutines protect the contents of registers
; when necessary. Most of the storage locations are defined at the
; end of this file, however, the circle coordinates are located in an
; external file: "HUD01G.CIR", which was generated by "CIRCLE4A.BAS".
;
;======================= UPDATES =========================
; 09/27/89 * Started HUD01 attitude display program.
; Program uses CGA graphics screen and direct video memory
; writes for maximum speed.
; 09/28/89 * HUD01G1.CIR file generated by CIRC4.BAS
; 09/30/89 * Preliminary program working properly ok.
; Drawing rate is a bit slow due to the complexity of the
; calculations required for direct screen update.
; 10/10/89 * HUD01G1.CIR modified to include markers every 90 degrees
; to make it easier to find horizontal/vertical coordinates.
; 10/13/89 * killed bug in line drawing routine that caused fuzzy circles.
; 10/16/89 * modified X_LINE to make S_LINE routine.
; X_LINE uses XOR, S_LINE just plots...
; 10/22/89 * Pitch bar wraps around at 90 degrees.
; 10/25/89 * Roll and Pitch interaction working smoothly.
; 11/08/89 * Added routines to interface to the external sensors via X-BUS.
; 11/10/89 * Killed the final bugs (?) involving table wrap
; 11/12/89 * Doubled control response rate (by cheating).
; 11/14/89 * Rewrote keypad parser for simultaneous pitch/roll
; Keyboard parser uses numbers 1-9 for inputs.
; 11/18/89 * Numlock turned on/off automatically on entry/exit.
; 11/20/89 * Added vertical readout boxes to screen
; Added EOC and BOC routines to reduce size of code (about 1k).
; These check End Of Table and Beginning Of Table.
; 11/22/89 * Added INVERTED indicator, gear displays.
; 11/25/89 * Added vertical display indicators, slight modifications to
; panel layout to allow simple character indicator.
; Uppercase input moves indicator UP, lowercase moves down.
; 11/28/89 * Moved attitude display to seporate routine.
; Flags used are P_Invert & R_Invert
; 12/02/89 * Fixed minor bug in PrintC (wrong print interupt)
; * Modified Show_Cross to get pitch value from P_BAR.
; Pitch and Roll now run continously (0-360).
; P_Bar wraps at 90 degrees to correct horizion motion.
; 12/04/89 * Added Heading/Reciprocal display

;************************************************* ********
; This routine simulates sensor inputs via keyboard.
; In fully implemented form, the sensor inputs would come from
; the vertical gyro instrument, probably through an ADC S80 chip,
; since the gyro outputs normally drive a synchro-resolver motor.
;
; When sensors are used for input, the local processing found here
; (upper and lower limits) would be added to the sensor driver code.
; The keyboard routine is implemented as a linked list below.
;

[Stealth Pilot]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:10:53 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>> I think we're being told a lot of digital stuff is "better"
>> when it really isn't in some ways. Digital stuff is much cheaper to
>> manufacture, because machines can assemble almost the entire thing,
>> while analog devices have small moving parts that usually need to be
>> put together by hand. The profit on digital equipment must be a lot
>> higher, especially on the cheap stuff.
>> I can't use digital meters while troubleshooting electrical
>> problems. The digital VOM I can afford only samples the voltage or
>> whatever about once a second, making any rapid adjustments or quick
>> readings impossible. The old analog meter goes immediately to the value
>> and shows any changes instantly. In cold weather the LCD digital
>> display gets sleepy but my mechanical needle still works faithfully.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>Good points, one and all. And my experience as well.
>
>Peter
>

There is one area where an electronic display could offer something
better than a mechanical instrument.

if you are fault finding something a history can be priceless. in
many(most) of the Citect industrial controls environments we provide a
popup graph mechanism which shows the value over the last couple of
minutes.
"how long has that oil pressure been dropping like that?" is something
that is answered immediately by a small trend graph of the value.

btw it is worth noting that most good pilots are long sighted and
quite often have a less than crystal clear view of nearby items so
having large graphical items on the instrument faces makes them easy
to read, especially in turbulence.

my flight watches(timepieces), for instance, I evaluate on the basis
of being able to recognise the time with just a momentary glance.
they are all analog and have very plain faces.

Stealth Pilot

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Morgans wrote:
> Is anyone (besides me) beginning to think that we are on the receiving end
> of a real practical joker?

I'm serious.
> Too many things don't add up. Statements about things in China that are not
> realistic, or possible. (homebuilt airplanes in China? I don't think so.)

I never made any statements about China. Another poster implied that
China would be more receptive to the idea of flying airplanes made by
people who subscribe to "less-than-rigorous" standards.

> Use of English that is on a level that someone might expect for a poster
> from China, then this last bit of this post. No mistakes, use of phrases
> and English vocabulary (psychedelic twirly things?) that would not be
> typical of a foreigner, unless they had very good control of English, then
> there would not have been all of the earlier mistakes.

You might be confusing me with the OP, whose ideas I espouse.

> Totally far out ideas, that nobody would want to even consider, and for
> someone making instruments, they would have a better idea of what is desired
> and possible.

What is desired?...I can only speak for myself, and again, I'm not a
pilot, but I don't think I need to be a pilot to know that I would want
some of the things I mentioned, just as I didn't need to learn to drive
before knowing that I would have preferred a car radio with 150+
channels and heated leather retractable seats instead of what I got.
As for as knowing what is possible, if you mean technically, I think
I'm qualified.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Peter Dohm]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Morgans wrote:
> > Is anyone (besides me) beginning to think that we are on the receiving
end
> > of a real practical joker?
>
> I'm serious.
> > Too many things don't add up. Statements about things in China that are
not
> > realistic, or possible. (homebuilt airplanes in China? I don't think
so.)
>
> I never made any statements about China. Another poster implied that
> China would be more receptive to the idea of flying airplanes made by
> people who subscribe to "less-than-rigorous" standards.
>
> > Use of English that is on a level that someone might expect for a poster
> > from China, then this last bit of this post. No mistakes, use of
phrases
> > and English vocabulary (psychedelic twirly things?) that would not be
> > typical of a foreigner, unless they had very good control of English,
then
> > there would not have been all of the earlier mistakes.
>
> You might be confusing me with the OP, whose ideas I espouse.
>
> > Totally far out ideas, that nobody would want to even consider, and for
> > someone making instruments, they would have a better idea of what is
desired
> > and possible.
>
> What is desired?...I can only speak for myself, and again, I'm not a
> pilot, but I don't think I need to be a pilot to know that I would want
> some of the things I mentioned, just as I didn't need to learn to drive
> before knowing that I would have preferred a car radio with 150+
> channels and heated leather retractable seats instead of what I got.
> As for as knowing what is possible, if you mean technically, I think
> I'm qualified.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
Well, it's like this: I went back and read the original post, and doubt
that the OP has ever enjoyed any opportunity to fly.

You OTOH need to spend a pleasant morning, or afternoon, in a real little
airplane with a real flight instructor! And, it may not hurt to tell him
why.

After that, you will see that certain parts of the information that a pilot
uses are best displayed in an analog format. You may get a little air sick;
and that can be a good thing, because it will come right back whenever
anyone suggests that a numeric readout is just as good for an obviously
analog task.

There is no good reason not to get a quick introductory education. There
are one armed pilots, one eyed pilots, paraplegic pilots, etc. So there are
no excuses: Just do it!

Until then, I plan to regard further references to most numeric flight and
navigation instrument displays simply as trolls.

Peter

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Roger wrote:
> Careful, that's age discrimination <:-)) There are a few of us old
> guys out there that do that kind of programming too.

I have found historically that younger people are more likely to create
disruptive technologies than older people, those like Burt Rutan
notwithstanding. Imagine if Napster had been a project undertaken by
IBM instead of a 19-year-old. It might have never launched - the
project leaders at IBM would have been carried away on stretchers after
nearly choking each other to death in a fight over who would get the
credit for creating a piece of software that would be used by
100,000,000+ people.

>> Not when they are certified for use in aircraft. They may be light
> weight and accurate, but adding them to an aircraft took away the
> "cheap"

I disagree here. I've worked on digital communications systems for the
U.S. Department of Defense that were hardly cheap to get certified.
But no matter how expensive the certification, if you're making N of
them, the certification cost is amortized so that it is little more
than a temporary nuissance.

> >accurate. If it fails, the computer will know immediately. With
>
> Only if the system is programmed to know and how are you going to
> program it to know. An open or shorted sensor is just another input
> unless there are valid limits programmed into the system. But that is
> not enough either. The system has to have a way of notifying the
> pilot that the oil pressure, or CHT, or EGT reading has gone bad AND
> it's the sensor, not the actual oil pressure that had gone. Zero oil
> pressure and an open or shorted sensor may and probably will appear
> the same to the input of the A/D converter.

This is where electrical engineers come in. I could rattle off the
names of 20 people I know personally who could assuage any of these
concerns after 4-hour meeting in boardroom, and know how to design the
circuit, with USB interface, cheaply, in real-time, as the concerns are
being enumerated.

> The problem is that what looks good when it is used here on the desk
> may not be good for us out there in the real world. What appears
> simple at first glance, isn't, or what appears simple with the system
> on my desk isn't out in the real world. It's best to think of it this
> way. If it looks simple it probably isn't, you don't have enough data,
> or you forgot something.

See comment on EE's in boardroom.

> Right now I'm setting in front of a 20.1" (gotta remember that point
> one) LCD which is driven from a video card that will also serve as an
> output to my TV, take signals from the TV, has a tuner for off the air
> signals, has S-video inputs and outputs as well as composite and
> digital. That video card is in a 64 bit computer with more on board
> cache than my first computer had memory. The computer has over 1.6
> terabytes of hard drive storage. My computers back up to each other
> across a gigabit, hard wired CAT5e network. I use external hard drives
> connected via USB for OS backup. I use USB2 for camera and memory
> card input. With all that sophistication, absolutely none of this
> would be worth beans in an airplane.

Being a member of ARRL, you already know that there are people who
could describe in detail the operation of the things you just
enumerated, beginning with quantum mechanics and the conduction band,
doping concentrations in silicon. diffusion of electrons across a PN
junction or channel enhancement/depletion in MOSFET, how liquid crytals
work, how convulution, filtering, and amplification allows the tuner to
select channels, how signals are combined and seperated in the
composite cable, the Level 1 and Level 2 caches in the CPU, why
translation lookaside buffers help performance so much, the function of
the oxide coating on the disk and the how Maxwell's third equation of
electrodynamics involding curl-of-E = -d/dt (surface integral mu-H)
makes bits jump off the hard disk platter into the read head, why the
hardisk needs to be "opened" using CreateFile() as a special device
when doing backup so as to get it right without data corruption, why
gigabit ethernet needs more than the 4 wires normally used in 10mb/s
ethernet, and why the wires must be twisted. There is a useful place
in an aircraft for every device you mentioned. The display could
be..well...the display. The computer could be the computer. The RAM,
the RAM. The hard disk, the hard disk. The web cam, mount it and take
pictures. Matter of fact, have two, one for inside, one for outside.
Ethernet cable could go to redundant computers. Again, one gets all of
this (but not 64-bit) for under $500.

This sophistication is taken for granted by experts in field, just as
you would take for granting knowing how to pull out of stall, so most
non-pilot expert electrical/software engineers would start crying if
you stalled their plane and told them to fix it.

I guess this is the thesis of what I am saying. There is something
powerful about letting domain experts be experts in their domain. We
have all come across an amateurish web page that is put up by someone
whose products are otherwise highly regarded in their respective
industry. We thinking, "Man...this web site does not do just to the
products." It's difficult to tell the person..."Hey..ummm......you
might want to think about getting a web designer to redo your web
site." The product maker will often not see the big deal - after all,
the difference between what was there before (absolutely nothing),
versus what is there now (a very handsome HTML page based on skills
acquired laboriously over past 6 months) justifies that the site should
remain unchanged. And besides, the site doesn't look bat at all. It
looks quite pretty in fact.

Another indication that we are not tapping the power of specialization:

In college, there was this huge push for "interdisciplinary
interaction." The deans of the engineering (and other) schools kept
trying to get professors out of their departments and "cross-breed"
with the other professors in other departments. It was almost as if
someone had spiked the deans' punch with Viagra. The wanted a giant,
university-wide techno love fest. They even went as far has to hype
the benefits of projects that had attempted to follow this model.

Today, I see why the deans were pushing so hard for this. They
recognized that, as systems builders and as humans, we have a tendency
to overstep our boundaries. We not only do what we are good at, but
we dibble in fields where it might be better to let an expert take
over. We neglect the opportunity to let specialization do its work.
Sometimes we do this because we are just plain greedy. But sometimes
it is out of sheer ignorance. The best example I had of this was when
I was playing Tetris in a computer lab in the early 90's and saw a
biologist sitting next to me doing genome work that looked very
repetitive. It turned out that it wold have taken him 4 months to
complete it by hand. Two programmers and I got together and crunched
his data in 12 minutes. He was so excited, he bought us pizza and Coke
and could hardly talk straight as he explained more and more of what he
wanted. We were amused by his enthusiam, but to us, we didn't see the
big deal. He probably would have married one of us if we had been
female. If this person had not been open-minded, he would have done all
that work by hand, as his peers continued to do, some of whom were
leaders in their field. What's remarkable and important is that we did
not understand the genetics, *BUT* we did recognize that he was doing
something that we knew we could do much better with a computer, and he
had the humility to allow us to prove it.

And I believe this is the case for gadgetizing aircraft (and cars for
that matter). For all the speculation on complexity of programs,
sizes, cost, stranger danger, .....for a person skilled in *this*
field, meaning a software or electrical engineer (but not mechanical
engineer or pilot), the concerns are simply unfounded.

What's happening right now is that companies like Garmin are doing this
so slowly that it is hard to see that it's happening.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Ernest Christley]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> jls wrote:
>
>>You want to give up the stick and rudder to the CPU too? I think I'd like
>>to hang on to that. Everything else might be ok except I'd like some analog
>>redundancy.
>
>
> Hmm...I've thought about the stick and rudder problem quite a bit, and
> the irrational part of me says keep the mechanics, but the rational
> part of me says that electronics will do the job. If the system is
> designed correctly, it will operate correctly, even when it's broken.
>
> I'd probably design system with so much redundancy that, if you crashed
> as result of fault, God probably wanted you to crash anyway.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>

As someone who has spent the last several years working in quality
control for electronic devices, let me just say..."No FRIGGIN' way, dude"

No matter how much you think you've thought of everything, you haven't.
It doesn't matter if it is mechanical or electronically controlled.
It just that with the mechanical control, you have a chance to see the
rust running off the torque tube and feel the extra play in it during
preflight. When you're a leaking electron, no one can hear you scream.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Ernest Christley]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

> Semiconductors fatigue. Their parts don't vibrate.

In a plane they will. And they will crack if not supported properly.

They are not as
> susceptible to variations in moisture and other environmental factors.

Drop the temps to -40F and they won't work at all. Dowse them in water
and couple of times and the leads will corrode.

> If I were to go dig out an old 1984 IBM PC from my schools computer lab
> closet and flip the switch, it might not start, but that would be due
> to rust on the mechanics. I could take the board out, put it in a
> non-rusty case, power it, and it will boot. And it will compute up to
> 4.77 million instructions per second thereafter, and continue to do so
> for 1000 years provided I did not drop or fry it.

Or it may just beep at you.

Problem is, most light craft don't have a professionally trained team of
engineers to care for them. Hell, a lot of them are stored outside. At
least with the heavy metal you can see the environmental damage
progressing and take appropriate measures.
>
> This is why I believe that heavy metal will eventually give way to a
> lightweight composites and plastics. The value proposition is just to
> great to ignore.

Just don't ignore the drawbacks.


--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Ernest Christley]

Roger wrote:

> Glass panels are more reliable,

If and only if the electrical system is more reliable. At this point
(still waiting for further developments) I'm going with a Dynon (BMA
takes to long to boot up), with some backup steam gauges. The plane
will still fly without the engine running and the batteries drained, and
I won't enough information to make it as comfortable as possible.


--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Morgans]

"Ernest Christley" > wrote

> I'm going with a Dynon (BMA takes to long to boot up), with some backup
> steam gauges. The plane will still fly without the engine running and the
> batteries drained, and I won't enough information to make it as
> comfortable as possible.

I'm sure there was a typo in that last sentence, but I was not able to
figure out what you were trying to say.

Wanna' try again? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Ernest Christley]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> Roger wrote:
>
>>Careful, that's age discrimination <:-)) There are a few of us old
>>guys out there that do that kind of programming too.
>
>
> I have found historically that younger people are more likely to create
> disruptive technologies than older people, those like Burt Rutan
> notwithstanding. Imagine if Napster had been a project undertaken by
> IBM instead of a 19-year-old. It might have never launched -

No it wouldn't have. Because the IBM execs would have had the good
sense to ask their lawyers if it were legal.

>
>
>>>Not when they are certified for use in aircraft. They may be light
>>
>>weight and accurate, but adding them to an aircraft took away the
>>"cheap"
>
>
> I disagree here. I've worked on digital communications systems for the
> U.S. Department of Defense that were hardly cheap to get certified.
> But no matter how expensive the certification, if you're making N of
> them, the certification cost is amortized so that it is little more
> than a temporary nuissance.
>

Ahh! There's the rub. When your talking GA aircraft, you don't have N
of them to amortize across. You have (N - MOST)
>
>>>accurate. If it fails, the computer will know immediately. With
>>
>>Only if the system is programmed to know and how are you going to
>>program it to know. An open or shorted sensor is just another input
>>unless there are valid limits programmed into the system. But that is
>>not enough either. The system has to have a way of notifying the
>>pilot that the oil pressure, or CHT, or EGT reading has gone bad AND
>>it's the sensor, not the actual oil pressure that had gone. Zero oil
>>pressure and an open or shorted sensor may and probably will appear
>>the same to the input of the A/D converter.
>
>
> This is where electrical engineers come in. I could rattle off the
> names of 20 people I know personally who could assuage any of these
> concerns after 4-hour meeting in boardroom, and know how to design the
> circuit, with USB interface, cheaply, in real-time, as the concerns are
> being enumerated.
>

I work with these sort of engineers. I have to test thier systems. I
still hear the classic, "The customer would never do that."
>
>
> This sophistication is taken for granted by experts in field, just as
> you would take for granting knowing how to pull out of stall,

And the constant lockups, resets, restarts, and workarounds are also
taken for granted.


>
> I guess this is the thesis of what I am saying. There is something
> powerful about letting domain experts be experts in their domain. We

> And I believe this is the case for gadgetizing aircraft (and cars for
> that matter). For all the speculation on complexity of programs,
> sizes, cost, stranger danger, .....for a person skilled in *this*
> field, meaning a software or electrical engineer (but not mechanical
> engineer or pilot), the concerns are simply unfounded.

I'm a software engineer and a pilot. The concerns are most certainly
and profoundly founded. You can sit in front of your PC and pontificate
all day long, but when your hanging your butt in the clouds you won't
care for your "PC" system to tell you that it's going offline so the
embedded OS can do an automatic update via its USB interface.

>
> What's happening right now is that companies like Garmin are doing this
> so slowly that it is hard to see that it's happening.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>

Cheap, fast, right. Pick two.
Companies like Dynon and BMA have product flying out the door with more
capability each year. Problem is, they get only one chance to do it
right. If just one person dies because of their systems, it's all over
for them. They're doing just fine, IMHO.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Morgans]

"Ernest Christley" > wrote

> Drop the temps to -40F and they won't work at all. Dowse them in water
> and couple of times and the leads will corrode.

> Just don't ignore the drawbacks.

And you didn't mention static charges (coming in from all of those sensors)
wiping memory clean, or damaging components, nor did you mention radio
frequency interference, or engine noise, or the computer causing
interference problems with the communications.

The issue of displays washing out is in the most part solved with
commercially available displays being marketed for aviation use, but the 500
buck computer that has been mentioned here is not going to have a display
capable of working in the cockpit.

I hope by the time I finish an airplane, there are glass cockpit units that
will fit my budget. I would love to have one.
--
Jim in NC

P.S. How is your project going? Is it about time for you to post a
write-up on your progress? :-)

[Ernest Christley]

Morgans wrote:

> I hope by the time I finish an airplane, there are glass cockpit units
> that will fit my budget. I would love to have one.

Dynon was advertising the D10A for $1700 at Sun'n'Fun.

I've got the fuselage flipped upside down as I finish the belly fabric.
I was hoping to get the Polybrush and Polyspray on this weekend, but
got sidetracked putting the last pieces of fabric on control surfaces.
Once I'm done with all the PolyStuff spraying, I flip it back over an
start on the fiberglass upper skins.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Ernest Christley]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Ernest Christley" > wrote
>
>> I'm going with a Dynon (BMA takes to long to boot up), with some
>> backup steam gauges. The plane will still fly without the engine
>> running and the batteries drained, and I won't enough information to
>> make it as comfortable as possible.
>
>
> I'm sure there was a typo in that last sentence, but I was not able to
> figure out what you were trying to say.
>
> Wanna' try again? <g>

Aargh! Want! I WANT enough information. Dang-it!

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
Ernest Christley > wrote:
>Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

[[.. munch ..]]

>> This is where electrical engineers come in. I could rattle off the
>> names of 20 people I know personally who could assuage any of these
>> concerns after 4-hour meeting in boardroom, and know how to design the
>> circuit, with USB interface, cheaply, in real-time, as the concerns are
>> being enumerated.
>
>I work with these sort of engineers. I have to test thier systems. I
>still hear the classic, "The customer would never do that."

"For every fool-proof system developed, there exists a
_sufficiently_determined_ fool capable of breaking it."

"You can make a thing damn-near fool-proof,
But you can't make it near damn-fool proof."

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Morgans wrote:
> "Ernest Christley" > wrote
>
> > Drop the temps to -40F and they won't work at all. Dowse them in water
> > and couple of times and the leads will corrode.
>
> > Just don't ignore the drawbacks.
>
> And you didn't mention static charges (coming in from all of those sensors)
> wiping memory clean, or damaging components, nor did you mention radio
> frequency interference, or engine noise, or the computer causing
> interference problems with the communications.

Sensors are no where near the memory of the computuers. I would think
that an EE designing USB-based sensor would know to design it so as not
to damage the PC. RFI is hyped. Everytime somone operaters a laptop
or PDA in an aircraft, the are generating RFI. And besides, it's
something that is easily dealt with.

> The issue of displays washing out is in the most part solved with
> commercially available displays being marketed for aviation use, but the 500
> buck computer that has been mentioned here is not going to have a display
> capable of working in the cockpit.

I've used both PDA and laptop screen in aircraft many times. But not
in the cockpit..;)

> I hope by the time I finish an airplane, there are glass cockpit units that
> will fit my budget. I would love to have one.

I'm hoping one day work on a custom aircraft project with some people.
Obviously, I'd want to work on the electronics. :)

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Richard Lamb]

An interesting set of "glass panel" gizmos...

http://www.avnet.co.uk/lts/pages/eis.htm

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Richard Lamb wrote:
> An interesting set of "glass panel" gizmos...
>
> http://www.avnet.co.uk/lts/pages/eis.htm

This is precisely what I mean. I notice they sell an engine monitor, a
fuel guage and a fuel computer. Then there is the IC-A3E VHF COM
transceiver.

These are the types of "gadgets" that should be consolidated into a
software-centric model. The idea is that the PC manufacturer would
make the main system with display. Mechanical specialists would make
inexpensive, USB-compatible, throw-away gadgets in their areas of
expertise. The software people would tie everything together.

Since the fuel gauage shown is being sold for 99 british pounds, I
don't think it would be too difficult to compete on a cost basis.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Morgans]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote


> RFI is hyped. Everytime somone operaters a laptop
> or PDA in an aircraft, the are generating RFI. And besides, it's
> something that is easily dealt with.

I wish I could point right to the bit I just read recently, saying that RFI
is *more* of an issue than was previously thought.
--
Jim in NC

[Richard Lamb]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

> Richard Lamb wrote:
> > An interesting set of "glass panel" gizmos...
> >
> > http://www.avnet.co.uk/lts/pages/eis.htm
>
> This is precisely what I mean. I notice they sell an engine monitor, a
> fuel guage and a fuel computer. Then there is the IC-A3E VHF COM
> transceiver.
>
> These are the types of "gadgets" that should be consolidated into a
> software-centric model. The idea is that the PC manufacturer would
> make the main system with display. Mechanical specialists would make
> inexpensive, USB-compatible, throw-away gadgets in their areas of
> expertise. The software people would tie everything together.
>
> Since the fuel gauage shown is being sold for 99 british pounds, I
> don't think it would be too difficult to compete on a cost basis.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Right idea, wrong implementation approach.

Integrate.

Bring all the pieces together in your own (proprietary) box.



Almost any old processor will do, but not a box - but a chip.

Integrate the circuit functions into that.
Serial, parallel, USB, etc.
Interface and drivers for sensors...

The display is the hard part.

I saw an LCD TV receintly with 1400:1 contrast ratio that was awesome.
A little big for the Pitts, but very readable.
Also very expen$ive - but it's the technology you want - not the TV.

Look back over these posts to see what people think they want and
try to make something that fits?

As for the mechanical gages?

One that is woefully lacking is an off-the-shelf low value amp meter.
(more precisely ('cuz Jim's watching) - one that might have interchangable
shunts?) 60/30/15 amp display?

I run a 15 AH battery. A 60 amp meter tells me nothing.

Richard

[Morgans]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote
>
> Since the fuel gauage shown is being sold for 99 british pounds, I
> don't think it would be too difficult to compete on a cost basis.

From your posts:

show altitude, IAS, TAS, average velocity, average acceleration, etc.
* show stress all over aircraft as colors correlated to degree of
stress on parts
* show air pressure, humidity, etc.
* control fuel efficiency with exact precision
* play videos
* play music with psychedelic twirly things
* have voice-over-IP (VOIP) conversation with 9 other air-borne pilots
simultaneously
* render 3-D maps of terrain
* render 3-D map of airports
* render 3-D images of flight path
* show precipitation with little colored droplets and clouds
* record images terrain from web cam mounted underneath
* log flight data
* redisplay hotel information that was save in web page at airport
* control the heat warmers in seats
* control transparency of side windows
* control wattage of lights, internal and external
* show tire pressure
* show fuel level
* show oil level
* show hydraulic pressure
* control fuel mixture according to altitude, pressure, etc
* control throttle
* control, trim, pitch, yaw, roll
* control foot heaters
* control defoggers, wipers
* monitor pilot's face and do image recognition to see if s/he's dozing
off
* act as radio for ATC and other communications
* provide verbal warnings for unorthodox maneuvers and suggestions for
improvement
* synthesized verbal training based on actual conditions
* synthesized verbal read-out of current local atmospheric conditions
* synthesized verbal read-out of forthcoming atmospheric conditions
20-miles out
* show 3-D map of all other aircraft in vicinity
* allow kids to play video game in back seats

I count at least 28 items. Some of them would be well above 99 pounds.

So that puts your system (before computer or displays) at 2800 pounds?

Humm.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote
>
>
> > RFI is hyped. Everytime somone operaters a laptop
> > or PDA in an aircraft, the are generating RFI. And besides, it's
> > something that is easily dealt with.
>
> I wish I could point right to the bit I just read recently, saying that
RFI
> is *more* of an issue than was previously thought.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
I read or heard the same, and don't recall the source or precise date,
except that it had to do with use of "non transmitting" electronics (such as
laptops and PDAs) in the cabins of airliners and corporate jets.

Peter

[Morgans]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> I read or heard the same, and don't recall the source or precise date,
> except that it had to do with use of "non transmitting" electronics (such
> as
> laptops and PDAs) in the cabins of airliners and corporate jets.

Right.

Was it AvWeb?
--
Jim in NC

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Morgans wrote:
> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote
> >
> > Since the fuel gauage shown is being sold for 99 british pounds, I
> > don't think it would be too difficult to compete on a cost basis.
>
> From your posts:
>
> show altitude, IAS, TAS, average velocity, average acceleration, etc.
> * show stress all over aircraft as colors correlated to degree of
[snippage]
> * show air pressure, humidity, etc.
> So that puts your system (before computer or displays) at 2800 pounds?
>
> Humm.

That's just it. Most of the things I listed would cost far less than
$99 (let's switch to dollars for convenience). The reason that they
cost $99 or greater *now* is precisely because of the nature of the
supply chain.

Each component has a mechanical sensor and a display of some sort. The
mechanical sensor is unavoidable. But all of those displays can be
consolidated into one unit. The real question is, "How cheaply can
USB-based sensors of various sorts be manufactured?" I think the answer
is "very cheaply".

The problem is economics. Demand is relatively low, so the
manufacturers have to price units to make the effort worthwhile. But
as soon as the devices become truly commoditized, the prices will
become so low that the devices will become almost disposable. This has
already happened in electronics, were you can buy a 100Mb/s ethernet
adapter for $15. When you think about the technology that is involved
in creating a 100-meg ethernet adapter, it's simply incredible that you
can get one for less than cost of a meal for two.

I'd like to see the same thing happen in aviation. I'd like to see
commoditization of the sensors and controls. I'd like to see someone
make a USB-based humidity sensor, make it right, make it reliable, make
it cheap, and get out of the way. I'd like to see this done for all
the sensors.

If the manufactures did this, there would be other people who could
take care of the rest.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
>
> > I read or heard the same, and don't recall the source or precise date,
> > except that it had to do with use of "non transmitting" electronics
(such
> > as
> > laptops and PDAs) in the cabins of airliners and corporate jets.
>
> Right.
>
> Was it AvWeb?
> --
> Jim in NC
>
I think so, but can't find the article.

Peter

[PlasticPilot]

Sounds great... until one of the Kiddies turns on "Automatic Updates"
and
the damn thing reboots on final in IMC... ~%=0

[Roger]

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:13:06 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote
>
>
>> RFI is hyped. Everytime somone operaters a laptop
>> or PDA in an aircraft, the are generating RFI. And besides, it's
>> something that is easily dealt with.
>
>I wish I could point right to the bit I just read recently, saying that RFI
>is *more* of an issue than was previously thought.

As is the susceptibility of GPS to solar storms and ground based
interference.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:03:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote
>>
>>
>> > RFI is hyped. Everytime somone operaters a laptop
>> > or PDA in an aircraft, the are generating RFI. And besides, it's
>> > something that is easily dealt with.
>>
>> I wish I could point right to the bit I just read recently, saying that
>RFI
>> is *more* of an issue than was previously thought.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
>I read or heard the same, and don't recall the source or precise date,
>except that it had to do with use of "non transmitting" electronics (such as
>laptops and PDAs) in the cabins of airliners and corporate jets.

Some computers are terrible radiators in the 100 - 150 MHz range.
I doubt they'd bother GPS unless they got in on an IF .

Just be happy the Chrysler V-6 with computer is not flying around up
there with us. They had one that put out a discrete and very strong
signal in the 2-meter ham band that could block a receiver up to a
city block away which made it the worst computer interference I've
seen so far.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Peter
>

[Stella Starr]

Roger wrote: saying that RFI
>> is *more* of an issue than was previously thought.
>
> As is the susceptibility of GPS to solar storms and ground based
> interference.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Really?
I hadn't heard about sunspots and GPS. Does a GPS get funky or lose the
satellite signal when there's a lot of Northern Lights?

[Highflyer]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I think if you're about to take a trip, waiting the whole 17 seconds
> for the OS to boot (Windows) won't hurt too much.
>

That is all very well when you are sitting in the coffee shop playing with
your laptop.

17 seconds without instruments on an instrument approach in solid IMC and it
will hurt a lot, but not for long.
Requiscat et Pacem ...

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Highflyer]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...

> The point I'm trying to make is for glass panels the code is kept as
> compact as possible which means custom software that has to be
> certified. These things are a long way from what sits on our desks.
>

Amen Roger,

The code bloat these days is absolutely phenomenal. Remember when you could
put a complete Unix system with all the accessories, bells, and whistles and
run thirty or forty users doing real work with only 16 megabytes of disk for
everything! And back it all up on a tape cartridge. :-)

I remember doing a simulator/training system for McD's that simulated four
combat missle launch platforms at the same time with all of their
instrumentation and readouts while moving them about independantly in the
simulation and letting them shoot missiles at each other. Each launch
platform could be any one of four choices and you made the change over by
merely unplugging the display panel and plugging in a different one. The
computer computed the positions of all the players and simulated all of the
instruments in real time. It even did the timing for response delays
throughout the system, which were different for each of the launch platform
choices.

I wrote the operating system and all of the control routines for this system
in Z80 assembler. It all ran memory resident on a Z80 8 bit processor with
64K bytes of memory and NO disk drive. If any of you remember, the Z80 did
NOT have fancy arithmetic instructions. All it had was add and subtract and
all of the range, bearing, square, square root, and arcsin and arccos
functions had to be done with a "shift and add" type algorithym. All of
this, along with system parameters and data for all of the various launch
platforms fit into the 64K byte memory with room to spare. And it ran in
real time with instrument update accuracy within a tenth of a second window.

Compared to that, a glass panel is simplicity itself and the old Z80 is
plenty of processor to do the job. I might point out, though, that NO
multitasking operating system really qualifies as a "real time" operating
system. Nothing Microsoft has ever put out qualifies for "real time."
Also, they, more than anyone, have made millions from "code bloat."

I used to run the EMACS editor in a 32K Z80 machine. For several users and
with all of the documents they were working in the various windows ( up to
ten windows each ) all in that little Z80 machine.

The machine code for Notepad wouldn't even fit in that machine!

Program it from scratch for reliability and remember, every line of code has
to be certified!

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Highflyer]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I disagree here. I've worked on digital communications systems for the
> U.S. Department of Defense that were hardly cheap to get certified.
> But no matter how expensive the certification, if you're making N of
> them, the certification cost is amortized so that it is little more
> than a temporary nuissance.

Certification cost on the order of several millions of dollars.
100 < N < 1000. Say certification 10,000,000 dollars ( a bit low but not
unreasonable )
That amortizes the certification cost out as between $10,000 and $100,000
per system. That is somewhat more than a "temporary nuissance" in my book.
So the computer only cost $500. Wheeeeee. Now the system cost is ONLY
$10500. :-) Yippeeee or should I say YIPE! :-)


> And I believe this is the case for gadgetizing aircraft (and cars for
> that matter). For all the speculation on complexity of programs,
> sizes, cost, stranger danger, .....for a person skilled in *this*
> field, meaning a software or electrical engineer (but not mechanical
> engineer or pilot), the concerns are simply unfounded.
>

For the persons skilled in software or electrical engineering ( I taught
both at a major university ) the concerns are indeed unfounded. In fact
they are of no concern at all.

However, for the pilot ( I are one of those also, as well as a
mechanical/aeronautical engineer ) these are very real concerns and I have
yet to see any software engineer satisfy me to the point where I am willing
to bet my life, literally, on his ability to make them go away.

I am in a very bad position since I do indeed qualify as an expert as both a
software engineer and as a pilot. As a result I can see the simple
solutions and the wide range of problems on both sides of the equation.

It is possible to write simple clear and accurate code to make all kinds of
instruments work beautifully in either analog or digital modes and fly the
darn airplane too, and do it cheaply or relatively so. See the "Digitrak"
line of instruments and autopilots that were developed by a friend of mine
( who is a contempory of mine in age also ) and who is a top notch
electrical engineer and a top notch pilot as well. Notice also that he
elected to avoid the "certification process" required to utilize these
instruments and autopilots in type certified aircraft. For obvious reasons
cited above! He went through that particular can of worms when he
developed the Century series of autopilots some years ago. Never again ...

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )



> What's happening right now is that companies like Garmin are doing this
> so slowly that it is hard to see that it's happening.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>

[Highflyer]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
>
> As for the mechanical gages?
>
> One that is woefully lacking is an off-the-shelf low value amp meter.
> (more precisely ('cuz Jim's watching) - one that might have interchangable
> shunts?) 60/30/15 amp display?
>
> I run a 15 AH battery. A 60 amp meter tells me nothing.
>
> Richard
>

I bought one that has two needles and scales. It functions as a volt meter
and an ammeter simultaneously. The shunt is external and mounts outside the
meter where it connects into the buss system under the panel. Shunts are
available for a number of different ranges with 60 amp being the highest
value available. Other than having to buy the meter and the shunt
separately, because of the range of different shunts available, it was
certainly "off the shelf". I found it in the Wick's catalog and they
shipped it the same day from stock.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Highflyer]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message > Yes
proper nomenclature is really important. But in fact, I do mean
> both the instruments and the controls. They should be brought as deep
> into the digital domain as possible. Again, as an electrical/software
> engineer (but not a pilot), I am biased.

And from your lack of experience and your bias you are accusing us of being
stupid and reactionary. Clearly we should see this the same way you do.

To us you appear as incredibly ignorant. You suggestions are incredibly
naive and ignorant.

Learn to fly. Get an instrument rating. Put your life on the line. THEN
come back and convince us.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Stealth Pilot]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:07:37 -0500, "Highflyer" > wrote:

>
>"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message > Yes
>proper nomenclature is really important. But in fact, I do mean
>> both the instruments and the controls. They should be brought as deep
>> into the digital domain as possible. Again, as an electrical/software
>> engineer (but not a pilot), I am biased.
>
>And from your lack of experience and your bias you are accusing us of being
>stupid and reactionary. Clearly we should see this the same way you do.
>
>To us you appear as incredibly ignorant. You suggestions are incredibly
>naive and ignorant.
>
>Learn to fly. Get an instrument rating. Put your life on the line. THEN
>come back and convince us.
>
>Highflyer
>Highflight Aviation Services
>Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )
>
>
got it exactly correct in those 3 paragraphs.
Stealth Pilot

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Highflyer wrote:
> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > I think if you're about to take a trip, waiting the whole 17 seconds
> > for the OS to boot (Windows) won't hurt too much.
> >
>
> That is all very well when you are sitting in the coffee shop playing with
> your laptop.
>
> 17 seconds without instruments on an instrument approach in solid IMC and it
> will hurt a lot, but not for long.
> Requiscat et Pacem ...

Don't turn PC off during flight.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Highflyer wrote:
> And from your lack of experience and your bias you are accusing us of being
> stupid and reactionary. Clearly we should see this the same way you do.

Whose making accusations? I was talking about digital controls, not
stupidity and reactionism.

> To us you appear as incredibly ignorant. You suggestions are incredibly
> naive and ignorant.

There is an echo in here somewhere...

> Learn to fly. Get an instrument rating. Put your life on the line. THEN
> come back and convince us.

It is not necessary to be skilled in the utilization of a tool to know
how to implement that tool.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Peter Dohm]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Highflyer wrote:
> > "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > I think if you're about to take a trip, waiting the whole 17 seconds
> > > for the OS to boot (Windows) won't hurt too much.
> > >
> >
> > That is all very well when you are sitting in the coffee shop playing
with
> > your laptop.
> >
> > 17 seconds without instruments on an instrument approach in solid IMC
and it
> > will hurt a lot, but not for long.
> > Requiscat et Pacem ...
>
> Don't turn PC off during flight.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
I've got a great idea for you, Le Chaud.

Especially since the odds are that your plane of reality is in a different
state than mine and certainly hundreds of miles away: I think that you
should develope and test this whole concept, including the fly by wire
(a/k/a drive by wire) in your car. It should be pretty safe, not much new
to learn and you're already on the ground...

[Peter Dohm]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Highflyer wrote:
> > And from your lack of experience and your bias you are accusing us of
being
> > stupid and reactionary. Clearly we should see this the same way you do.
>
> Whose making accusations? I was talking about digital controls, not
> stupidity and reactionism.
>
> > To us you appear as incredibly ignorant. You suggestions are incredibly
> > naive and ignorant.
>
> There is an echo in here somewhere...
>
> > Learn to fly. Get an instrument rating. Put your life on the line.
THEN
> > come back and convince us.
>
> It is not necessary to be skilled in the utilization of a tool to know
> how to implement that tool.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
This entire thread started off because some poor technician, apparently
living in the R.O.C. according to this sender address, asked a question
which could be paraphrased as: Do we [humans and/or pilots] still use
mechanical analog meters purely from habit or, if given a free choice, would
we prefer electronic digital displays, electronic analog displays, or both
displays superimposed?

You, Le Chaud, took his question far beyond the next level, by suggesting
that the entire instrument and navigation systems could be combined into a
single inexpensive package, and then asserted that you were only agreeing
with the OP.

So, by the time that you were "only agreeing" you were already saying that
our crude, but redundant, displays should be combined into a single system.

That did still leave our crude, but redundant, primary flight controls and
trim controls relatively intact. But wonders did cease.

Since then, an autopilot seems to have been added; and now a complete,
though not redundant, fly by wire...

A few minutes ago, I suggested elsewhere in the thread that you try it first
in your car. I have reconsidered my rash statement, and now suggest that
you try it first in a go-cart. Less collateral damage!

[Robert Bonomi]

In article . com>,
Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>Highflyer wrote:
>> And from your lack of experience and your bias you are accusing us of being
>> stupid and reactionary. Clearly we should see this the same way you do.
>
>Whose making accusations? I was talking about digital controls, not
>stupidity and reactionism.

You have made disparaging comments about those who have the temerity to
disagree with your assessment of the 'value' of integrated digital
functionality.
>
>> To us you appear as incredibly ignorant. You suggestions are incredibly
>> naive and ignorant.
>
>There is an echo in here somewhere...

Yup. in that empty space between your ears.

You are *so* ignorant of the field (flight instrumentation and aircraft
operation) that you can't even use the basic terminology correctly.

Do you know what 'controls', as in 'flight controls' even _means_?

If you do, why do you persist in using in the *grossly**incorrect* manner
you do?

What would _you_ think of the electronics skills of someone who made continuing
reference to a "500 micro-farad resistor"?

>> Learn to fly. Get an instrument rating. Put your life on the line. THEN
>> come back and convince us.
>
>It is not necessary to be skilled in the utilization of a tool to know
>how to implement that tool.

But a thorough knowledge of the environment in which it will operate *is*
=CRITICAL=.

You have _demonstrated_ a clear lack of comprehension of:
1) the physical environment
2) the potential size of the market
3) the regulatory issues (and *costs*) involved in selling beyond the
miniscule 'experimental' (aircraft) market.
4) Murphy's Law. (I'll bet you don't even know what field Murphy worked
in. And, yes, he is a -real- person.)
5) O'Brien's Law.

Trivial example of your 'ignorance in action' -- promoting USB for
sensor-processor interconnect. _ONE_ sensor on the bus malfunctions
in a manner such as to 'hang' the bus, and *none* of the other sensors
can pass status data. e.g. tire-pressure flakes out and you lose
air-speed, turn-and-bank, and altimeter, too. Ah well, that's no
problem I guess, given you've got the 'cat and duck' emergency reserve
system.


*INDEPENDENT* hardware systems have this inconsequential little
characteristic known as 'no common single point of failure'. As soon
as you start 'integrating' multiple functions within a system, the
difficulty of maintaining that autonomy among functions increases
radically.

And the more functions you 'integrate' together, the *harder* it gets
to prevent compound, _catastrophic_, failures.

Even the famed "triple-redundant hardware w/ 'voting'" architecture
doesn't protect against a _software_ error, assuming all 3 sets of
hardware are using the same software. And, if they're _not_ using
'identical' software, you have to (a) vet 3 separate implementations,
(b) make sure the installed versions are the 'equivalent' at all times,
and (c) ensure that all modifications and updates are done differently
on the three 'unique' versions.




That which you have proposed _could_ be done relatively easily as you
suggest. But *ONLY* for 'toy `value' reasons, and _IN_ADDITION_TO_ the
existing tools.

For reasons -- only _some_ of which have been alluded to above -- which
are outside of your realm of expertise, no PIC in his right mind would
trust his life (or that of his passengers) to a system of the type you
have described. The 'downside risk' in a worst-case scenario is un-
acceptable, and the probability of worst-case scenarios is far, *FAR*
too high.


BTW, did you know that 'flight instrumentation', not to mention 'flight
controls' is classified as a 'life critical' use; and *NO* commodity
operating system license allows you to use it for life critical applications?
`
You _wouldn't_believe_ how expensive a life-critical-certified O/S is.
And how _LITTLE_ functionality it includes.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> Yup. in that empty space between your ears.
>
> You are *so* ignorant of the field (flight instrumentation and aircraft
> operation) that you can't even use the basic terminology correctly.
>
> Do you know what 'controls', as in 'flight controls' even _means_?

> If you do, why do you persist in using in the *grossly**incorrect* manner
> you do?

I used terms that are considered normal in control theory. I regard the
aircraft as a machine that is being engineered, not any more or less
than I would an automobile, a conveyor belt, etc. Regarded in that
way, the proper terms are controls and sensors.

Note that I am not attempting to change what aviation calls these
things, but I use the term to be clear. In my model, it would be hard
to find the "instruments", because they would be supplanted by a purely
digital display that could very well have 80% of monitor taken up by
picture of the house pet. If we were to revert to what many pilots
seem to prefer, which is not what I was promoting, then I would use the
terminology that they are using.

> What would _you_ think of the electronics skills of someone who made continuing
> reference to a "500 micro-farad resistor"?

Perhaps that person has found a resitor with absolutely huge intrinsic
capacitance.

> >It is not necessary to be skilled in the utilization of a tool to know
> >how to implement that tool.
>
> But a thorough knowledge of the environment in which it will operate *is*
> =CRITICAL=.
>
> You have _demonstrated_ a clear lack of comprehension of:
> 1) the physical environment
> 2) the potential size of the market
> 3) the regulatory issues (and *costs*) involved in selling beyond the
> miniscule 'experimental' (aircraft) market.
> 4) Murphy's Law. (I'll bet you don't even know what field Murphy worked
> in. And, yes, he is a -real- person.)
> 5) O'Brien's Law.

Perhaps the reason that the market is so miniscule is that it is cost
prohibitive to many people who might consider it. And regulation is
regulation. The device either works or it doesn't. As far as the
1000-unit count that was stated by someone else, I never pegged the
unit count at 1000. I do know that if the cost drops below a certain
threshold, along with the cost of ownership, there would be many more
people who would consider flying as a hobby, especially if the
components were significantly more commoditized than they are now.

> Trivial example of your 'ignorance in action' -- promoting USB for
> sensor-processor interconnect. _ONE_ sensor on the bus malfunctions
> in a manner such as to 'hang' the bus, and *none* of the other sensors
> can pass status data. e.g. tire-pressure flakes out and you lose
> air-speed, turn-and-bank, and altimeter, too. Ah well, that's no
> problem I guess, given you've got the 'cat and duck' emergency reserve
> system.

Any problems of this nature can be cicumvented with proper engineering.

> *INDEPENDENT* hardware systems have this inconsequential little
> characteristic known as 'no common single point of failure'.

I guess that's why most aircraft come with spare engines.

> As soon
> as you start 'integrating' multiple functions within a system, the
> difficulty of maintaining that autonomy among functions increases
> radically.

True. But that hasn't stopped people from using software to control
"life critical" systems.

> And the more functions you 'integrate' together, the *harder* it gets
> to prevent compound, _catastrophic_, failures.

Same.

> Even the famed "triple-redundant hardware w/ 'voting'" architecture
> doesn't protect against a _software_ error, assuming all 3 sets of
> hardware are using the same software. And, if they're _not_ using
> 'identical' software, you have to (a) vet 3 separate implementations,
> (b) make sure the installed versions are the 'equivalent' at all times,
> and (c) ensure that all modifications and updates are done differently
> on the three 'unique' versions.

All systems are susceptible to faulty design. The key is whether the
engineer has realized what s/he thinks s/he has realized, with
sufficient provision for oversight.

> That which you have proposed _could_ be done relatively easily as you
> suggest. But *ONLY* for 'toy `value' reasons, and _IN_ADDITION_TO_ the
> existing tools.

I disagree. I do believe that the day will come where the so-called
"too complex to leave to software" designs will be the nom. It will
happen slowly as people drag their feet.

I remember reading that when cars came out, people were terrified of
the though of two vehicles going in opposite directions at more than 40
mph in opposite with no median on the road. Today it's no big deal -
just this morning I was doing 80mph on on such road as the person
approaching me was doing 70. What if my brakes gave out? What if the
power steering developed a mind of its own? What if the nuts worked
themselves loose and a tire came off (1 nut did come off once)? What if
the ECM decided to lock in speed control as I approached the curve?

What if...what if....what if..?

What if does happen, but not frequently enough to keep me from driving,
or taking elevators, or climbing into a computerized axial tomography
machines, or letting a software machine control the positions my jaw at
the dentist, or let a software machine limit bombardment of my chest by
radiation, or let a software machine control the injection of lasers
into my eyes...

One day, as it most often does with advancement in the application of
technology, "What if..?" is going to turn into just "What?"

> For reasons -- only _some_ of which have been alluded to above -- which
> are outside of your realm of expertise, no PIC in his right mind would
> trust his life (or that of his passengers) to a system of the type you
> have described. The 'downside risk' in a worst-case scenario is un-
> acceptable, and the probability of worst-case scenarios is far, *FAR*
> too high.

If you simply replaced "PIC" with "person" in the above paragraph, you
could be restating an assertion made about any of many inventions that
have been built over the last 300 years, including aircraft.

> BTW, did you know that 'flight instrumentation', not to mention 'flight
> controls' is classified as a 'life critical' use; and *NO* commodity
> operating system license allows you to use it for life critical applications?

No I didn't know that, but things change. If the price is right, and
the demand is high enough, peopole will find a way to revisit
"technicalities" to accommodate their new perspective on the matter.

> You _wouldn't_believe_ how expensive a life-critical-certified O/S is.
> And how _LITTLE_ functionality it includes.

So basically what you're saying is that the program that controls the
flaps should not have Web popups that promote gambling? ;)

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Robert Bonomi]

In article . com>,
Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> Yup. in that empty space between your ears.
>>
>> You are *so* ignorant of the field (flight instrumentation and aircraft
>> operation) that you can't even use the basic terminology correctly.
>>
>> Do you know what 'controls', as in 'flight controls' even _means_?
>
>> If you do, why do you persist in using in the *grossly**incorrect* manner
>> you do?
>
>I used terms that are considered normal in control theory.

Unfortunately, you comingled/confused/aggregated 'inputs' and 'outputs'.
either deliberately, or through ignorance of function in regard to aircraft.
Or, possibly a failure to understand that they are qualitatively different..

> I regard the
>aircraft as a machine that is being engineered, not any more or less
>than I would an automobile, a conveyor belt, etc. Regarded in that
>way, the proper terms are controls and sensors.
>
>Note that I am not attempting to change what aviation calls these
>things, but I use the term to be clear. In my model, it would be hard
>to find the "instruments",

Bull****. An 'instrument' has three uniquely identifiable functional parts,
Sometimes these parts are distinct components, which may, or may not be
in physical proximity; sometimes they are inextricably co-mingled.
the components are:
1) an input source -- to which the name 'sensor' usually applies.
2) a translation unit, for lack of a better name
3) a display of some sort.
`
> because they would be supplanted by a purely
>digital display that could very well have 80% of monitor taken up by
>picture of the house pet. If we were to revert to what many pilots
>seem to prefer, which is not what I was promoting, then I would use the
>terminology that they are using.

That digital display is still the visible part of the 'instrument'.
They're usually referred to as 'soft instruments', when you're dealing
with a full "glass cockpit", because the location of the 'instruments'
can be relocated at need. This is generally _not_ done at whim, because
pilots expect to find the same instruments in the same place. However,
in case of a partial failure, it can be necessary to 'relocate' critical
instruments to a functioning display.

>> >It is not necessary to be skilled in the utilization of a tool to know
>> >how to implement that tool.
>>
>> But a thorough knowledge of the environment in which it will operate *is*
>> =CRITICAL=.
>>
>> You have _demonstrated_ a clear lack of comprehension of:
>> 1) the physical environment
>> 2) the potential size of the market
>> 3) the regulatory issues (and *costs*) involved in selling beyond the
>> miniscule 'experimental' (aircraft) market.
>> 4) Murphy's Law. (I'll bet you don't even know what field Murphy worked
>> in. And, yes, he is a -real- person.)
>> 5) O'Brien's Law.
>
>Perhaps the reason that the market is so miniscule is that it is cost
>prohibitive to many people who might consider it.

Much more likely, it is because it is "time prohibitive" for most people.

The 'experimental' market is the _build-it-yourself_ crowd.

Visit the FAA database, and see how many _actively_flying_ craft there
are in that category. and see how many -additions- there are in a years
time.

Then look at the size of the actively flying 'general aviation' category.

To sell to _that_ group, you have to get your toy 'government certified'
in *each* type of aircraft you want to have it installed in.

Assume the certification cost is 'only' $1,000,000 per type.
Assume that you sell to 10% of the planes flying in that type.
How much does that 'certification' alone add to your cost of production?
How much do you have to raise the prices to compensate?
How many _fewer_ sales will you make because of that price increase?

> And regulation is
>regulation. The device either works or it doesn't. As far as the
>1000-unit count that was stated by someone else, I never pegged the
>unit count at 1000.

Of course you didn't. that's just one more of the things you "Don't know".
It is a reasonable estimate of the _entire_ *active* experimental aircraft
marketplace that might be interesting buying such a critter.

For break-even, you'll have to amortize you *entire* development costs
over some (relatively small) fraction of that market.

If you're lucky, you'll get 25% market penetration. Over a period of years.

But, lets say your product is*really* good, and you get a 50% share.
How much do you have to charge to recoup all your development, marketing,
and production expenses, with a projected sales volume of a whopping 500
units?

How many of those people will be 'priced out of the market' at that point?

It's _not_ just an engineering matter. <grin>

> I do know that if the cost drops below a certain
>threshold, along with the cost of ownership, there would be many more
>people who would consider flying as a hobby, especially if the
>components were significantly more commoditized than they are now.

"if dog, rabbit." Postulate (by faith) the right assumptions -- regardless
of congruence with the real world, and you can prove *anything*.

Owning an airplane is *expensive*.

Purchase price is, actually, a relatively *SMALL* part of that cost.

insurance, storage, maintenance, are all 'non-trivial', and that's *before*
you go flying at all. Now add in 'consumables', gas, oil .etc.

Recurring costs in the mid to upper 4 figures a year. mid to upper 5 figures
over 10 years. a mid-5-figure purchase price (used), that you can sell
10 years later (properly maintained) for. say, 80% of purchase, is not a
big part of the picture. drop the purchase price to 'low 4 figures'.
it doesn't make a noticable dent in the TCO.

>> Trivial example of your 'ignorance in action' -- promoting USB for
>> sensor-processor interconnect. _ONE_ sensor on the bus malfunctions
>> in a manner such as to 'hang' the bus, and *none* of the other sensors
>> can pass status data. e.g. tire-pressure flakes out and you lose
>> air-speed, turn-and-bank, and altimeter, too. Ah well, that's no
>> problem I guess, given you've got the 'cat and duck' emergency reserve
>> system.
>
>Any problems of this nature can be cicumvented with proper engineering.

Since you proposed USB as the way, you must now be admitting your proposal
was not proper engineering. Which the rest of us already knew. <grin>

>> *INDEPENDENT* hardware systems have this inconsequential little
>> characteristic known as 'no common single point of failure'.
>
>I guess that's why most aircraft come with spare engines.

You just demonstrated, again, how much you _don't_know_ about aircraft and
flying.

If you look at the planes in commercial use today, you'll find that
_almost_all_ of them *ARE* equipped with a 'hot spare' engine.

Until recently in fact, for long-distance over-water flights, you had to
carry *TWO* 'hot spares'. The latest Boeing, and a few other newer planes
are allowed to make that kind of flight with only one 'hot spare'.

Yes, you can fly faster with additional engines, but _AT_LEAST_AS_IMPORTANT_
is the fact that you *can* keep flying if you lose one. or two.

And, with the exception of some homebuilts using 'conversion' engines,
there are 'close to' two engines behind that single propeller. dual
spark-plugs per cylinder. dual magnetos to generate the power to the
plug, frequently dual carbs, dual fuel feeds, etc.

>
>> As soon
>> as you start 'integrating' multiple functions within a system, the
>> difficulty of maintaining that autonomy among functions increases
>> radically.
>
>True. But that hasn't stopped people from using software to control
>"life critical" systems.

Agreed. but you *don't* do it 'on the cheap'. It is, by nature, *NOT*
a 'commodity' market. This is stuff you want 'done right', _not_, "by
the lowest bidder".

And far-and-away the fast majority of 'life-critical' software is in
essentially single-function devices.

E.g.,in a hospital, f you're getting three different meds in the IV,
they'll hand a -separate- monitoring computer for each drug, rather than
one computer that monitors all three bottles.
>
>> And the more functions you 'integrate' together, the *harder* it gets
>> to prevent compound, _catastrophic_, failures.
>
>Same.

And the *more* expensive it is, _per_function_.
complexity of interactions goes up at a rate _far_above_ linear.

The "law of diminishing returns" _inexorably_ bites you in the pocketbook.

Why do you think the hospital 'crash cart' has a whole bunch of _independent_
computerized devices, rather than one computer with a collection of
peripherals?

>> Even the famed "triple-redundant hardware w/ 'voting'" architecture
>> doesn't protect against a _software_ error, assuming all 3 sets of
>> hardware are using the same software. And, if they're _not_ using
>> 'identical' software, you have to (a) vet 3 separate implementations,
>> (b) make sure the installed versions are the 'equivalent' at all times,
>> and (c) ensure that all modifications and updates are done differently
>> on the three 'unique' versions.
>
>All systems are susceptible to faulty design. The key is whether the
>engineer has realized what s/he thinks s/he has realized, with
>sufficient provision for oversight.
>
>> That which you have proposed _could_ be done relatively easily as you
>> suggest. But *ONLY* for 'toy `value' reasons, and _IN_ADDITION_TO_ the
>> existing tools.
>
>I disagree. I do believe that the day will come where the so-called
>"too complex to leave to software" designs will be the nom. It will
>happen slowly as people drag their feet.

That's ok. You "don't know what you don't know".

You can't even state the problem proposition correctly.

The issue is -not- 'too complex to leave to software'; it is "too expensive
to create the software of the necessary quality and reliability" combined
with "weighs more than the alternative."

You don't know aircraft design.

You don't understand the "trade-offs".

Weight - reliability - cost - failure-modes


>I remember reading that when cars came out, people were terrified of
>the though of two vehicles going in opposite directions at more than 40
>mph in opposite with no median on the road. Today it's no big deal -
>just this morning I was doing 80mph on on such road as the person
>approaching me was doing 70. What if my brakes gave out?

Why do you think cars have an "emergency brake"?

Why do you think that that brake control is a _mechanical_ parallel to the
hydraulic system?

> What if the
>power steering developed a mind of its own?

Odd you should mention that one. Why do you think that there is still a
*direct*mechanical* connection between the wheel and the tires?

Why haven't we gone to 'drive by wire' for automobiles?
Drive-by-wire steering, using nothing more than simple selsyn motors
could have been done 40-50 years ago. Eliminating that long steering
column, and saving (probably) the lives of all those people who have
died from being 'impaled' on the column.

> What if the nuts worked
>themselves loose and a tire came off (1 nut did come off once)?

Why do you thing wheels are held on with multiple nuts?

Note: _I_ *have* lost a wheel (completely) at highway speeds. A bad
wheel bearing chewed up the axle, and it broke. tire, wheel, brake
drum and all came off. car ran over the tire, and the rear end bounced
about 4 feet in the air. Came down with a slam, and went skidding down
the highway, grinding off the bottom of the plate behind the brake drum.
"Gyroscopic action" caused the tire to recover onto its tread, and it
got impatient with the way the car was slowing down, and swung out and
_passed_ me. I looked out the driver's window, and there was my left
rear tire. it ended up about 1/2 mile further down the road from where
I, and the car, came to a stop.z.

> What if
>the ECM decided to lock in speed control as I approached the curve?

Why do you think the brake-pedal interlock on the speed control
_mechanically_ disconnects the throttle control, as well as sending
a cut-off signal to the software?

Why have all those separate computers under the hood? Why not 'integrate'
all the functionality? Why not have the ECM also handle the ABS? And the
climate control. And the radio. And the smart-key entry. And the remote
door-lock/unlock.
>
>What if...what if....what if..?
>
>What if does happen, but not frequently enough to keep me from driving,
>or taking elevators, or climbing into a computerized axial tomography
>machines, or letting a software machine control the positions my jaw at
>the dentist, or let a software machine limit bombardment of my chest by
>radiation,

God thing you weren't treated by one of those buggy X-ray machines a few
years back, isn't it? <grin>

> or let a software machine control the injection of lasers
>into my eyes...
>
>One day, as it most often does with advancement in the application of
>technology, "What if..?" is going to turn into just "What?"
>
>> For reasons -- only _some_ of which have been alluded to above -- which
>> are outside of your realm of expertise, no PIC in his right mind would
>> trust his life (or that of his passengers) to a system of the type you
>> have described. The 'downside risk' in a worst-case scenario is un-
>> acceptable, and the probability of worst-case scenarios is far, *FAR*
>> too high.
>
>If you simply replaced "PIC" with "person" in the above paragraph, you
>could be restating an assertion made about any of many inventions that
>have been built over the last 300 years, including aircraft.
>
>> BTW, did you know that 'flight instrumentation', not to mention 'flight
>> controls' is classified as a 'life critical' use; and *NO* commodity
>> operating system license allows you to use it for life critical applications?
>
>No I didn't know that, but things change. If the price is right, and
>the demand is high enough, peopole will find a way to revisit
>"technicalities" to accommodate their new perspective on the matter.

*snicker* You *really* "don't know what you don't know" on that one.
The _owner's_ of the software expressly disallow it's use in such
applications because of the risk of a lawsuit in the event something
"bad" happened. Whether it was their fault or not, they *will* get sued,
because they are in the 'deep pockets' class.

>
>> You _wouldn't_believe_ how expensive a life-critical-certified O/S is.
>> And how _LITTLE_ functionality it includes.
>
>So basically what you're saying is that the program that controls the
>flaps should not have Web popups that promote gambling? ;)

Hell, _that_ programming shouldn't even have the ability to do any sort
of filesystem activities, sure as hell doesn't need any graphical display
capabilities, MIDI output, voice-recognition, 'help' on usage, multi-lingual
support, unicode support, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

it's hard to make a case _against_ putting that programming in the on-chip
EPROM on a dedicated 8031. <grin>

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Robert Bonomi wrote:

> Why have all those separate computers under the hood? Why not 'integrate'
> all the functionality? Why not have the ECM also handle the ABS? And the
> climate control. And the radio. And the smart-key entry. And the remote
> door-lock/unlock.

This is the thesis of my argument.

It is very often the case that a person with expertise in one area
will, ideally, seek expertise in a complementary area but decide, for
whatever reason, not to seek it. The result is usually higher cost,
reduced inefficiency, and often less elegance than would have been
achieved if each expert had applied his/her expertise to their
respective fields of competence. In the case of the devices you
mention, redundancy surely would have been a reason for separting the
computers, but even if there had been a 100% guarantee that no fault
would have ever occured, the components would probably have still been
separated, because the engineers who make these things are not in the
mind set of commoditizing the components.

And for all the redundancy, failsafe-ness, etc... the fact is that
relatively few devices that are well-engineer malfunction. In fact, we
should be surprised that they function as well as they do. One the
magic price point has been it, most people are going to ask a simple
question that they have always asked historically: "What are the
chances that I am going to die or become seriously injured from using
this device, and what is the relative benefit that I get."

I am confident that real engineers can get their systems to a point
where the answer to the first part of this question is "relatively
small". Once that happens, it is pointless to talk about what-ifs,
becaause people will already be using the "things."

That day is going to come one day. If you look around hard enough, you
will see that it already has.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Ernest Christley]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>
>>Why have all those separate computers under the hood? Why not 'integrate'
>>all the functionality? Why not have the ECM also handle the ABS? And the
>>climate control. And the radio. And the smart-key entry. And the remote
>>door-lock/unlock.
>
>
> This is the thesis of my argument.
>
> It is very often the case that a person with expertise in one area
> will, ideally, seek expertise in a complementary area but decide, for
> whatever reason, not to seek it. The result is usually higher cost,
> reduced inefficiency, and often less elegance than would have been
> achieved if each expert had applied his/her expertise to their
> respective fields of competence.

And the thesis of nearly all the respones is this.

We are people with expertise in the fields you describe already. That
is our day job. (or was before retirement). We know what CAN be done,
and we have the ability to do it.

We also have expertise as pilots and airplane builders. Most of us are
licensed pilots. Many of us are flying airplanes we built. Many of us
have airplanes under contstuction (and will make progress just as soon
as we can get a PolyTone color chart and decide what color the belly
fabric should be). From this expertise, we know what SHOULD be done.

The two ain't necessarily the same.

I'm going to buy one of Dynon's integrated flight information systems.
I think they're neat, and they keep adding functionality. But it is
eye-candy, pure and simple.

I will fly only VFR, as my personal comfort level says not flying when
you can't see the ground. I will have the old, stodgy mechanical steam
gauges as backup...one being a ball-and-needle that will be vacuum
driven from a venturi tube. Note that it does not need the engine to be
turning to work. I have a couple backup engines. One is called
gravity. The other is known as thermals. They're not as good as Otto
Cycle engines, but they'll keep the plane moving forward for a while. I
want flight information for as long as I'm moving.


--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."