Cost of Cockpit Instruments

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Hi All,

I am a student for my private license, and during my last ground
school session, I was having discussion about how glass cockpits might
be made cheaper by using commoditized components. For example, some
GPS units cost $1000's US, but a friend of mine help found a company
that made the most advanced GPS receivers around, and those devices,
including package, barely cost $400. Simpler receives are a lot
cheaper, some as low as $50US (http://electronics.pricegrabber.com/gps-
receivers/p/2003/form_keyword=usb+gps/rd=1) I'm not sure what the
differences are in receivers, but I would imagine that a "good" GPS
unit could be had for say, $500, in which case, that, coupled with a
conventional PC and software, should be able to do anything that the
fancier (Garmin, etc) units can do. Most importantly, that one PC
could work for many instruments simultaneously, and cost difference
should be huge . [Yes, I know, reliability, FAA
certification...yada...]

What shocked me was the purported cost of instruments compared to what
they could cost. A USB pressure sensor should not cost more than
$500, in my opinion. I guessed that the VSI might cost a few hundred
dollars US as a conservative estimate. My instructor and another
student stated that the cost is more like in the $1000's for a typical
instrument. Is this true? It's not that I doubt my instructor or my
fellow student. I just want to get an idea of how much these various
devices cost.

For a base reference, I would consider the standard instruments found
in Cessna 172.

All comments welcome,

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:31:38 -0700, Le Chaud Lapin
> wrote in
. com>:

>Yes, I know, reliability, FAA certification...yada...

As a potential pilot, what instruments would you trust your life, the
lives over those whom you fly, and the lives of your passengers with,
FAA certified or commodity instruments?

Certainly, you can install any instruments you choose in your aircraft
licensed in the Experimental category.

[Bob Noel]

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

> Hi All,
>
> I am a student for my private license, and during my last ground
> school session, I was having discussion about how glass cockpits might
> be made cheaper by using commoditized components.
[snip]]
> and cost difference
> should be huge . [Yes, I know, reliability, FAA
> certification...yada...]

You say you know about reliability, etc. But do you really know what it takes
to do the safety analysis?

What are the failure modes of these components? How will failures
and errors be detected and handled? How will component changes
be handled? How much will it cost to repeat the appropriate analyses
when various vendors roll part numbers? How will you determine that
the part hasn't changed when the vendor didn't change the part number?
(Don't laugh, I've seen an LRU no longer work in a particular aircraft when
a chipset vendor changed a production process which ever so slightly
changed functionality but the vendor didn't change the part number).

And do you have any concept of what it would take to put a commodity
OS like windows into a safety-critical application?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Sep 19, 5:07 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:31:38 -0700, Le Chaud Lapin
> > wrote in
> . com>:
>
> >Yes, I know, reliability, FAA certification...yada...
>
> As a potential pilot, what instruments would you trust your life, the
> lives over those whom you fly, and the lives of your passengers with,
> FAA certified or commodity instruments?
>
> Certainly, you can install any instruments you choose in your aircraft
> licensed in the Experimental category.

Oh don't get me wrong. I do think that FAA certification is both
necessary and useful. The reason I wrote "yada" is that it seems
that, everytime I propose any kind of improvement to the control
system of an airplane (or car), my colleagues quickly imply that the
existing components cost so much because certification costs are so
high.

I don't believe this.

I think that certification costs are essentially what they are, a
relatively fixed cost compared to the profit that would be generated
based on the improvement.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Sep 19, 5:31 am, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article . com>,
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > Hi All,
> [snip]]
> > and cost difference
> > should be huge . [Yes, I know, reliability, FAA
> > certification...yada...]
>
> You say you know about reliability, etc. But do you really know what it takes
> to do the safety analysis?

Nope. I just know that it will be a fixed cost. My guess is that it
would be under $100,000,000. If so, then those costs would be
recuperated.

> What are the failure modes of these components?

Same as for most pieces of software and hardware. :)

> How will failures
> and errors be detected and handled?

Self-checking, pre-flight, and during flight, redundancy, etc.

> How will component changes
> be handled?

With more professionalism than the free pop-up blockers, for example.
The first time a plane crashes due to a company's gross oversight
(read, bad engineering), they would get license revoked by FAA. Also,
the components would still have to be checked.

> How much will it cost to repeat the appropriate analyses
> when various vendors roll part numbers?

Dunno...I think this is the crux of the issue. The existing older
components are well understood and familiar. 5,000 lines of C code is
not as familiar.

> How will you determine that
> the part hasn't changed when the vendor didn't change the part number?

Abstraction barrier. The component would have to comform to
specification. After that, they can changes as they wish.

> (Don't laugh, I've seen an LRU no longer work in a particular aircraft when
> a chipset vendor changed a production process which ever so slightly
> changed functionality but the vendor didn't change the part number).
>
> And do you have any concept of what it would take to put a commodity
> OS like windows into a safety-critical application?

>From a technical point of view, I guess, yes. From a "How much must I
pay the FAA and fight political fall-out" point of view, no.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Sep 19, 12:31 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am a student for my private license, and during my last ground
> school session, I was having discussion about how glass cockpits might
> be made cheaper by using commoditized components. For example, some
> GPS units cost $1000's US, but a friend of mine help found a company
> that made the most advanced GPS receivers around, and those devices,
> including package, barely cost $400. Simpler receives are a lot
> cheaper, some as low as $50US (http://electronics.pricegrabber.com/gps-
> receivers/p/2003/form_keyword=usb+gps/rd=1) I'm not sure what the
> differences are in receivers, but I would imagine that a "good" GPS
> unit could be had for say, $500, in which case, that, coupled with a
> conventional PC and software, should be able to do anything that the
> fancier (Garmin, etc) units can do. Most importantly, that one PC
> could work for many instruments simultaneously, and cost difference
> should be huge . [Yes, I know, reliability, FAA
> certification...yada...]
>
> What shocked me was the purported cost of instruments compared to what
> they could cost. A USB pressure sensor should not cost more than
> $500, in my opinion. I guessed that the VSI might cost a few hundred
> dollars US as a conservative estimate. My instructor and another
> student stated that the cost is more like in the $1000's for a typical
> instrument. Is this true? It's not that I doubt my instructor or my
> fellow student. I just want to get an idea of how much these various
> devices cost.
>
> For a base reference, I would consider the standard instruments found
> in Cessna 172.
>
> All comments welcome,
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

One big reason for the elevated cost is FAA certification. Another big
reason is that the equipment must be made to withstand the normal
demands of aviation, such as vibrations, temperature cycling,
interference etc.. In experimental aircraft you can install whatever
you like. Some manufacturers make good equipment but choose not to get
FAA certification for the cost. But that does not mean everything from
your local electronics dealer can be used. You mentioned GPS and
computers. Aviation GPS has RAIM, which is a signal integrity checking
system that warns the pilot when there are conflicting signals. Not
all computers work well in a cockpit unless they use solid state
drives. Normal LCD displays will stop working when it gets very cold,
or very hot. In fact they may not even work that well in a car if you
left them inside during summer and winter when temperatures can reach
extremes.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> Nope. I just know that it will be a fixed cost. My guess is that it
> would be under $100,000,000. If so, then those costs would be
> recuperated.

100 Million USD? Really, you think it would be that high?

But let's say you are right. If every single aircraft registered in the US
added your widget that would be amortized to about $500/plane.

While I fully agree that anything sold to go into an aircraft costs more
than it should at least some of that cost is there for a reason.

I'll bet if you call Intel's OEM sales unit and ask for a price on 500 INTEL
Core 2 Duo E6300 which is selling for around $155.00 anywhere on the web and
told them that you were going to put it in a certified aviation application
the price would jump significantly if they would sell it to you at all.

Here's a question and answer from Blue Mountain Avionics' website. They make
a EIS for experimental aircraft. Keep inmind what they are talking about is
for something that will go in an experimental aircraft. They are just
talking about GPS IFR approach certification.

Q: Is EFIS/One certified for GPS approaches?

On the advice of our most trusted avionics dealer and partner, we have
decided not to pursue it. For what it will cost to do TSO C129A testing and
certification, we'd have to raise the price of the EFIS by more than the
cost of a high-volume certified unit. We think it's a better deal to have a
reasonably priced glass cockpit, and the interconnect available for those
who want to fly GPS approaches. If you have a certified GPS, you can plug
it in to drive the flight director and autopilot in approach mode.

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> As a potential pilot, what instruments would you trust your life, the
> lives over those whom you fly, and the lives of your passengers with,
> FAA certified or commodity instruments?
>

What's that old saying the Air Force? Never forget the plane was built
by the lowest bidder.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jim Stewart]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am a student for my private license, and during my last ground
> school session, I was having discussion about how glass cockpits might
> be made cheaper by using commoditized components. For example, some
> GPS units cost $1000's US, but a friend of mine help found a company
> that made the most advanced GPS receivers around, and those devices,
> including package, barely cost $400. Simpler receives are a lot
> cheaper, some as low as $50US (http://electronics.pricegrabber.com/gps-
> receivers/p/2003/form_keyword=usb+gps/rd=1) I'm not sure what the
> differences are in receivers, but I would imagine that a "good" GPS
> unit could be had for say, $500, in which case, that, coupled with a
> conventional PC and software, should be able to do anything that the
> fancier (Garmin, etc) units can do. Most importantly, that one PC
> could work for many instruments simultaneously, and cost difference
> should be huge . [Yes, I know, reliability, FAA
> certification...yada...]

I think we are already close to your request.

A Lowrance 2000c gives you terrain, airspace,
VFR chart, airports and frequencies in a very
nice little package for about 700 USD on discount.

These days, a GPS that gives you lat/long, ground
speed and heading is trivial. I can't imagine
the amount of work that must go into all the other
details of a nice aviation GPS. Plus the warm
feeling of having a Jep database in the unit.

> What shocked me was the purported cost of instruments compared to what
> they could cost. A USB pressure sensor should not cost more than
> $500, in my opinion. I guessed that the VSI might cost a few hundred
> dollars US as a conservative estimate. My instructor and another
> student stated that the cost is more like in the $1000's for a typical
> instrument. Is this true? It's not that I doubt my instructor or my
> fellow student. I just want to get an idea of how much these various
> devices cost.

> For a base reference, I would consider the standard instruments found
> in Cessna 172.

Check http://www.dynonavionics.com

Beautiful equipment at a reasonable cost.

> All comments welcome,
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Sep 19, 9:52 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> 100 Million USD? Really, you think it would be that high?

No, I just picked a number that I was pretty sure it would not
exceed. :)

> But let's say you are right. If every single aircraft registered in the US
> added your widget that would be amortized to about $500/plane.
>
> While I fully agree that anything sold to go into an aircraft costs more
> than it should at least some of that cost is there for a reason.

I think the "more" part is *significant*. See below:

> I'll bet if you call Intel's OEM sales unit and ask for a price on 500 INTEL
> Core 2 Duo E6300 which is selling for around $155.00 anywhere on the web and
> told them that you were going to put it in a certified aviation application
> the price would jump significantly if they would sell it to you at all.

Well, something has to be certified. After all, the people who make
glass cockpits have to get CPU's and SRAM from somewhere.

> Here's a question and answer from Blue Mountain Avionics' website. They make
> a EIS for experimental aircraft. Keep inmind what they are talking about is
> for something that will go in an experimental aircraft. They are just
> talking about GPS IFR approach certification.
>
> Q: Is EFIS/One certified for GPS approaches?
>
> On the advice of our most trusted avionics dealer and partner, we have
> decided not to pursue it. For what it will cost to do TSO C129A testing and
> certification, we'd have to raise the price of the EFIS by more than the
> cost of a high-volume certified unit. We think it's a better deal to have a
> reasonably priced glass cockpit, and the interconnect available for those
> who want to fly GPS approaches. If you have a certified GPS, you can plug
> it in to drive the flight director and autopilot in approach mode.

I guess it's true that if you are selling devices in low-volume,
certification is not worth the cost.

This illuminates the real problem, which is that the approach to
building aircraft monitor and control systems is not the same as for
building computers. One of the reasons that computers are so cheap is
that the almost demand interchangeability. IBM and other large
companies, for a long time, have been able to lock in customers with
proprietary hardware, but the PC market will not tolerate this. While
I am not saying that companies like Garmin are deliberately trying to
lock in customers, it does not appear to me that they are making any
effort to commoditize their systems either. I think there is enormous
opportunity for a company to break away from this mindset and start
down the path of total commoditization and interchangeability.
Simple, cheap, robust USB-base monitors and controls will go a long
way.

Let's take an example:

Jim Stewart noted in a response to my OP, noting that...

"A Lowrance 2000c gives you terrain, airspace,
VFR chart, airports and frequencies in a very
nice little package for about 700 USD on discount."

Here it is:

http://www.lowrance.com/Products/Aviation/AM2000C.asp

He's right, it's cheaper than $1800, but...$700? When I look at that
device, I see nothing more than a PDA, a database, and some software.

Continuing with this example, let's suppose I take my $700 instead and
buy a standard basic PC from Dell. The Inspiron 531S is selling for
$529US: http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=DDCWGC2&s=dhs.
Note that it comes with 17inch, LCD color monitor, $160GB hard drive,
"in-flight movie viewing system" (DVD drive and Windows Media
Player). I would want two of these machines in my airplane, so let's
say cost is $1058.

Now I look at the link that Jim Stewart gave:

http://www.dynonavionics.com

First, let me point out that my goal is not to criticize Dynon. [One
should commend them for trying to bring the price down.]

However, looking at the EFIS-D100 (http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/
D100_intro.html), which costs $2400, one reads:

"Dynon's EFIS-D100 is the most affordable large screen Electronic
Flight Information System on the market today. Based on the best-
selling EFIS-D10A, the 7" wide-screen display features large, easy to
read text and graphics and is capable of displaying multiple pages
side by side in a split-screen format. The instrument integrates
multiple flight instruments, including airspeed, altitude, gyro-
stabilized magnetic compass, turn rate, slip/skid ball, bank angle,
and vertical speed. Other useful functions include a clock/timer, g-
meter, voltmeter and density altitude/true airspeed calculator."

When I see this device, I see

1. My two Dell computers with 17" monitors
2. More software
3. USB-based devices everywhere. I don't see why some sensors like
pressure sensor should not cost $50US or less.

For instance, the clock-timer.....we need not discuss what value such
a thing has in a PC. It's essentially 0$. G-meter...at worst case,
that's a USB-base accelerometer. Voltmeter...again..$10 would be a
conservative cost for USB-based device. Attitude indication, same
thing. Also, since I'd be using PC with 160GB hard disks each, there
would be plenty of space for maps of entire planet.

So let's say that each USB-gadget costs $50 in quantity on average,
and there are 12 of them, so that's $1200 if I double-up each device
for redundancy. My total system cost, including two computers, and 24
USB-based gadgets without software, would be $2258, less than the one
device for $2400. One could throw in a software-radio, and get access
to the entire suite of aviation radio communications. The massive 320
GB of hard-disk space would make things like logging trip data,
including weather information, almost trivial.

So a different approach might be to stop making finished systems and
instead focus on components. Manufacturers would make controls in
sensors in wide variety, all conforming to USB standard. A (cheap)
commodity PC would be able to control everything. And (licensed)
software developers could do their part.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

>
> So a different approach might be to stop making finished systems and
> instead focus on components. Manufacturers would make controls in
> sensors in wide variety, all conforming to USB standard. A (cheap)
> commodity PC would be able to control everything. And (licensed)
> software developers could do their part.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

That is where your problem is. It all has to be certified as a unit not as
individual components. Like it or not it isn't going to change with anything
short of an armed revolution.

Let me give you an example of FAA thinking.

I'm building and airplane, you can see it at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR.

When I'm done because I'm using a non certified prop and engine combination
I have to test fly it for 40 hours for phase one testing. If I was using an
engine and prop combination that had ever been paired up in a certified
aircraft I would only need to phase one test for 25 hours. Now here's the
kicker. Just because that certified engine and prop were mounted and flown
in an experimental they can never be considered certified again.

Another good example is the IFR GPS certification requirement even in an
experimental. I can install every single piece of electronics in my plane
and if one of those pieces happen to be a Nav/Com with Glide Slope I can fly
it IFR. For that matter I could even build the Nav/Com myself and the FAA
wouldn't care. (yes the FCC would but that is beside the point) But for a
GPS to be used IFR it has to meet the TSO requirements.

That Dynon unit you mentioned is what is going in my plane but even it can't
go into a certified aircraft without a metric butt load of paperwork.

I think deep down you know what the reasons for the cost are but if you
don't I'll tell you.

Volume: There really isn't that big a market.
Certification: Those Dell laptops would never pass the vibration tests
alone.
LIABILITY

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote
>
> What are the failure modes of these components? How will failures
> and errors be detected and handled? How will component changes
> be handled? How much will it cost to repeat the appropriate analyses
> when various vendors roll part numbers? How will you determine that
> the part hasn't changed when the vendor didn't change the part number?
> (Don't laugh, I've seen an LRU no longer work in a particular aircraft
> when
> a chipset vendor changed a production process which ever so slightly
> changed functionality but the vendor didn't change the part number).
>
> And do you have any concept of what it would take to put a commodity
> OS like windows into a safety-critical application?
All this and more. .

How about the displays necessary to be bright enough for easy viewing in
very bright situations? They cost twice as much alone, as the computers in
the price range he is suggesting on using for running the applications.

How about the hard drives? They need to be able to handle high altitudes
without (what is the proper term, here? ) hard drive platter crashes? (the
readers above the platter scraping the platters, instead of floating on a
layer of air slightly above the platters)
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote

> When I see this device, I see
>
> 1. My two Dell computers with 17" monitors
>
You are dreaming, and talking out of your but, while doing so.

Your Dells are not bright enough to be direct sunlight readable, which an
airplane display must be.

Your Dell does not have hard drives capable of operating above 12,000 feet.
(or perhaps much lower)

Oh, and that software you mentioned is expensive.

How about overhead to make all of this stuff, for a market of perhaps 2% of
your Dells. Same with the designing of the software.

How about profit for the investors? They will need some, spreading the cost
over not too many units.

I wish the stuff were not so expensive. Wishing will not make it so.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Morgans wrote:

>
> How about overhead to make all of this stuff, for a market of perhaps
> 2% of your Dells. Same with the designing of the software.
>

2%, surly you jest. Try 0.02%

[[email protected]]

On Sep 19, 3:17 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>
> > How about overhead to make all of this stuff, for a market of perhaps
> > 2% of your Dells. Same with the designing of the software.
>
> 2%, surly you jest. Try 0.02%

Actually, most laptop models sell around 10 million units a month, and
have a lifecycle of 2 years. That is a total of 240,000,000 units.

Most EFIS systems sell maybe 1000 to 2000 copies. For grins lets say
one is REALLY successful and sells 10,000 units.

10,000 divided by 240,000,000 is 0.004%

The market is absolutely TINY compared to consumer electronics.

That is the number 1 reason why everything is so expensive. That's
why even experimental equipment is much more expensive than consumer
electronics.

Number 2 is the cost of certification.

Number 3 is liability insurance.

[Bob Noel]

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

> Continuing with this example, let's suppose I take my $700 instead and
> buy a standard basic PC from Dell. The Inspiron 531S is selling for
> $529US:
> http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=DDCWGC2&
> s=dhs.
> Note that it comes with 17inch, LCD color monitor, $160GB hard drive,
> "in-flight movie viewing system" (DVD drive and Windows Media
> Player). I would want two of these machines in my airplane, so let's
> say cost is $1058.

problem: the hard drive won't survive high altitude flying. Do you want
your computer to die just because you fly at 13000'?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <> wrote

> Now here's the kicker. Just because that certified engine and prop were
> mounted and flown in an experimental they can never be considered
> certified again.

That is not consistant with what I have read.

If you keep the original data plate on the engine, and do all repair work
and follow all of the directives for the engine, and the work is done by an
A&P, then what you mount it in is not important. When you take it out, if
all work (engine maintenance and rebuilds) as been done up to FAA standards
by or supervised by an A&P, you can indeed put the engine back into a
certified plane. AS far as the prop goes, I am not up with the requirements
on them, but I "believe" the same standards apply for it.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>
>>
>> How about overhead to make all of this stuff, for a market of perhaps
>> 2% of your Dells. Same with the designing of the software.
>>
>
> 2%, surly you jest. Try 0.02%

<chuckle> Yep, that is probably more like it.
--
Jim in NC

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Sep 19, 1:08 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > Hi All,
>
> > I am a student for my private license, and during my last ground
> > school session, I was having discussion about how glass cockpits might
> > be made cheaper by using commoditized components. For example, some
> > GPS units cost $1000's US, but a friend of mine help found a company
> > that made the most advanced GPS receivers around, and those devices,
> > including package, barely cost $400. Simpler receives are a lot
> > cheaper, some as low as $50US (http://electronics.pricegrabber.com/gps-
> > receivers/p/2003/form_keyword=usb+gps/rd=1) I'm not sure what the
> > differences are in receivers, but I would imagine that a "good" GPS
> > unit could be had for say, $500, in which case, that, coupled with a
> > conventional PC and software, should be able to do anything that the
> > fancier (Garmin, etc) units can do. Most importantly, that one PC
> > could work for many instruments simultaneously, and cost difference
> > should be huge . [Yes, I know, reliability, FAA
> > certification...yada...]
>
> I think we are already close to your request.
>
> A Lowrance 2000c gives you terrain, airspace,
> VFR chart, airports and frequencies in a very
> nice little package for about 700 USD on discount.
>
> These days, a GPS that gives you lat/long, ground
> speed and heading is trivial. I can't imagine
> the amount of work that must go into all the other
> details of a nice aviation GPS. Plus the warm
> feeling of having a Jep database in the unit.
>
> > What shocked me was the purported cost of instruments compared to what
> > they could cost. A USB pressure sensor should not cost more than
> > $500, in my opinion. I guessed that the VSI might cost a few hundred
> > dollars US as a conservative estimate. My instructor and another
> > student stated that the cost is more like in the $1000's for a typical
> > instrument. Is this true? It's not that I doubt my instructor or my
> > fellow student. I just want to get an idea of how much these various
> > devices cost.
> > For a base reference, I would consider the standard instruments found
> > in Cessna 172.
>
> Checkhttp://www.dynonavionics.com
>
> Beautiful equipment at a reasonable cost.
>
>

Yes it is a very economical alternative, but not without some
compromises. Dynon needs airspeed as an input to stabilize its
reference systems. Other systems such as Blue Mountain use GPS as one
of the inputs. The ones that are truly inertial (ie not requiring any
inputs) are not in the same price range. So when comparing to the old
fashioned spinning gyros, one has to keep these differences in mind.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Sep 19, 5:01 pm, wrote:

> Actually, most laptop models sell around 10 million units a month, and
> have a lifecycle of 2 years. That is a total of 240,000,000 units.
>
> Most EFIS systems sell maybe 1000 to 2000 copies. For grins lets say
> one is REALLY successful and sells 10,000 units.
>
> 10,000 divided by 240,000,000 is 0.004%
>
> The market is absolutely TINY compared to consumer electronics.
>
> That is the number 1 reason why everything is so expensive. That's
> why even experimental equipment is much more expensive than consumer
> electronics.

Now *this* makes sense. This is what I suspected all along.

The problem is a catch 22. The planes are expensive because the
volume is relatively low. The volume is relatively low (partially)
because the planes are expensive.

I don't know how much the cost of an airplane is related to sensors,
controls, and monitoring equipment, but as an electrical/software
engineer, it's very difficult to spend $3000 for something you know
you could make for $150.

> Number 2 is the cost of certification.
>
> Number 3 is liability insurance.

I think if manufacturers where to build airplanes cheap (in cost),
Problems 2 and 3 will begin to fix themselves.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Sep 19, 9:14 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in ...
>
> > Morgans wrote:
>
> >> How about overhead to make all of this stuff, for a market of perhaps
> >> 2% of your Dells. Same with the designing of the software.
>
> > 2%, surly you jest. Try 0.02%
>
> <chuckle> Yep, that is probably more like it.

It's a catch 22. Market would probably increase dramatically if, say,
prices for electronics were cut in half. But as someone else pointed
out, it would have to be an industry-wide change in attitude, not a
little tweak here and there. Manufacturers would have to take it on
faith, for example, that if they were to make a reasonably-priced USB-
based OEM altimeter unit, it would find its place in an overall
system.

Those building experimental aircraft could lead the way by building an
entire system based on commodity components, as many as possible, and
maintaining a record of costs, etc. The resulting system would likely
not be something for mass market, but it would be a start.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Morgans wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <> wrote
>
>> Now here's the kicker. Just because that certified engine and prop
>> were mounted and flown in an experimental they can never be
>> considered certified again.
>
> That is not consistant with what I have read.
>
> If you keep the original data plate on the engine, and do all repair
> work and follow all of the directives for the engine, and the work is
> done by an A&P, then what you mount it in is not important. When you
> take it out, if all work (engine maintenance and rebuilds) as been
> done up to FAA standards by or supervised by an A&P, you can indeed
> put the engine back into a certified plane. AS far as the prop goes,
> I am not up with the requirements on them, but I "believe" the same
> standards apply for it.

The problem arises that if ANY alterations or work has been done to the
engine not by an A&P or supervised by one the certification is in doubt. In
the real world once it is in an experimental you'd be hard pressed to get
anyone to believe that it is still a certified engine.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

> It's a catch 22. Market would probably increase dramatically if, say,
> prices for electronics were cut in half. But as someone else pointed
> out, it would have to be an industry-wide change in attitude, not a
> little tweak here and there. Manufacturers would have to take it on
> faith, for example, that if they were to make a reasonably-priced USB-
> based OEM altimeter unit, it would find its place in an overall
> system.
>


Apple sold 1.8 million Macs in the first quarter of 2007. There are only
245,000 aircraft registered in the US. So if an item were sold and installed
in every single aircraft registered in the US you would still be shy by 1.55
milion as compared to the freaking Mac.

You really need to understand how small the market really is.


> Those building experimental aircraft could lead the way by building an
> entire system based on commodity components, as many as possible, and
> maintaining a record of costs, etc. The resulting system would likely
> not be something for mass market, but it would be a start.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

We could but we also like the safety of having things we are pretty damn
sure are going to work in flight. Most of us use AN bolts and aviation grade
parts for just that reason. I could save a ton by going to Home Depot and
buying bolds there. But I'm not going to.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Sep 19, 5:18 pm, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article . com>,
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > Note that it comes with 17inch, LCD color monitor, $160GB hard drive,
> > "in-flight movie viewing system" (DVD drive and Windows Media
> > Player). I would want two of these machines in my airplane, so let's
> > say cost is $1058.
>
> problem: the hard drive won't survive high altitude flying. Do you want
> your computer to die just because you fly at 13000'?
>

It's true...I didn't bother to check the specs on typical hard disks.
I remember checking back in 1995, and it was over 5,000 feet.

I'd probably go with hard disks made to run at that altitude, or if
those turned out to be too expensive, a solid-state drive. Memory
available would drop dramatically though, to only a few GB. I have an
8GB model that I bought for $14, so the price is not too bad.

There would also be the cost trade-off for pressurization.

Even with hard-disk limitation, my gut feel is that the commoditized
approach would still come out cheaper. But again, this depends on
taking a wholistic approach, where most of the components are selected
from the outside with a commodity-mindset.

I _do_ agree that a company attempting to make a profit by selling,
say only USB-based altimiter sensors would have a hard time making a
profit.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Gatt]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-

> And do you have any concept of what it would take to put a commodity
> OS like windows into a safety-critical application?

I toured a Navy cruiser within the last several years that had Windows
running at various stations around the bridge.

*cringe*

-c

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Gatt wrote:
>I toured a Navy cruiser within the last several years that had Windows
>running at various stations around the bridge.

Jeez. "Blue screen of Death" takes on new meaning.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200709/1

[[email protected]]

On Sep 21, 3:27 pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> Gatt wrote:
> >I toured a Navy cruiser within the last several years that had Windows
> >running at various stations around the bridge.
>
> Jeez. "Blue screen of Death" takes on new meaning.
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200709/1

Yes, just ask the Iranian A-320 passengers...

[Blanche Cohen]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>So a different approach might be to stop making finished systems and
>instead focus on components. Manufacturers would make controls in
>sensors in wide variety, all conforming to USB standard. A (cheap)
>commodity PC would be able to control everything. And (licensed)
>software developers could do their part.

Since when are software people licensed? Who does the licensing?
What are the exams? What is the followup to maintain it?

I just came back from a business trip and found my WinXP box dead.
As with every trip, I had shut everything down, disconnected the
power from the wall (actually, the UPS but that's another story).
Got home, reconnected everything, hit the power switch. Nothing.
Dead. I've already spent a couple hours diagnosing with no luck.

I can see your scenario of a cheap, COTS PC running the systems in my
cherokee crashing on my at night in IMC. Sure. Right. And my lawyers
will be in touch with your lawyers.

Do I like paying $675 for a new AI? Nope. Or $3400 for a new NAV/COM?
Or $6000 + installation for a 430? Nope. But in spite of what we think
of the FAA bureaucracy, the engineering and related groups really are
quality-driven. When I get a TC/STC/TSO/Certified item, I have a warm,
fuzzy feeling that it will do what it's supposed to do, have a reasonable
MTBF, and that under day-to-day circumstances, I won't have any
surprises.

At no time in my professional career (very large software systems in
aerospace) have I *EVER* had that feeling
with a COTS software or hardware system in a mission-critical environment.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Sep 22, 1:15 pm, (Blanche Cohen) wrote:
> Since when are software people licensed?

The products would have to be licensed.

> Who does the licensing?

Same agency that approves products containing software in say, Boeing
777.

> What are the exams? What is the followup to maintain it?

Oh, I see what you mean. The products would be certified, not just
the people who make them.

> I just came back from a business trip and found my WinXP box dead.
> As with every trip, I had shut everything down, disconnected the
> power from the wall (actually, the UPS but that's another story).
> Got home, reconnected everything, hit the power switch. Nothing.
> Dead. I've already spent a couple hours diagnosing with no luck.

Hmm...should be something simple if it's not coming on. I'd pop the
case and take a look. Cheap voltmeter set to < 15v DC will allow you
to check voltages at various points on board. I'd start with output of
powers supply.
>
> I can see your scenario of a cheap, COTS PC running the systems in my
> cherokee crashing on my at night in IMC. Sure. Right. And my lawyers
> will be in touch with your lawyers.
>
> Do I like paying $675 for a new AI? Nope. Or $3400 for a new NAV/COM?
> Or $6000 + installation for a 430? Nope. But in spite of what we think
> of the FAA bureaucracy, the engineering and related groups really are
> quality-driven. When I get a TC/STC/TSO/Certified item, I have a warm,
> fuzzy feeling that it will do what it's supposed to do, have a reasonable
> MTBF, and that under day-to-day circumstances, I won't have any
> surprises.
>
> At no time in my professional career (very large software systems in
> aerospace) have I *EVER* had that feeling
> with a COTS software or hardware system in a mission-critical environment.

I can at least sympathize with the reservations that you and others
have about using COTS components (thanks, that's term I was looking
for). However, I once went to the dentist to get XRAY's by fancy new
machine that moves in an arc around entire face, and it malfunctioned
and started to crush my skull until dentist ran in and stopped it.
There is also that minor matter of Space Shuttles blowing up every few
years, despite being undergoing what is arguably one of the most
rigorous certification processes around.

The point is that I that think that the "beware the danger of COTS"
attitude is too extreme for the actual risk involved. There is always
some risk.

I ride my motorcycle 150 m.p.h. during Sunday rides, and each time I
mount, I know that an engineer at Dunlop might not have done his job,
so I say a little prayer.... Even though full blowouts are rare, it
could happen, and if it's the front wheel, in a turn, I'm almost
guaranteed a quick death. Some unfortunate riders have already
experienced this fate. Does that stop me from riding? No, because I
looked at the statistics. I look at the likelihood that I will die
from a poorly engineered part, and it's so low relative to other bad
things that can happen to me that I take the risk. So do many other
people.

So I think the same thing could happen in aviation. There is a trade-
off between pain and pleasure of assumption. There is probably a
point where the cost would be so low from using (well-engineered) COTS
components that the risk of using them is superseded by the value that
they would bring.

This is true for non-critical components in an aircraft, and might be
true for many critical components.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Blanche Cohen" <> wrote

> I just came back from a business trip and found my WinXP box dead.
> As with every trip, I had shut everything down, disconnected the
> power from the wall (actually, the UPS but that's another story).
> Got home, reconnected everything, hit the power switch. Nothing.
> Dead. I've already spent a couple hours diagnosing with no luck.

Check your onboard bios (or is it cmos) battery. The little
watch/calculator sized flat battery.

If you do this often (unplug it) and it is more than a couple years old, it
may have forgotten that it is _not_ a coffee maker.
--
Jim in NC

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Le Chaud Lapin > posted:

> On Sep 22, 1:15 pm, (Blanche Cohen) wrote:
>> Since when are software people licensed?
>
> The products would have to be licensed.
>
>> Who does the licensing?
>
> Same agency that approves products containing software in say, Boeing
> 777.
>
Well, now we're right back where we started, unless you think that this
process results in cheap cockpit components for a 777. ;-)

>> What are the exams? What is the followup to maintain it?
>
> Oh, I see what you mean. The products would be certified, not just
> the people who make them.
>
Hmmm. When I was an inspector at a manufacturer of aircraft engine
components, I had to be certified (just as the welders, lathe operators,
etc. had to be), or the products wouldn't be certified. How do you get
around that by using just anybody to manufacture the products?

>> At no time in my professional career (very large software systems in
>> aerospace) have I *EVER* had that feeling
>> with a COTS software or hardware system in a mission-critical
>> environment.
>
> I can at least sympathize with the reservations that you and others
> have about using COTS components (thanks, that's term I was looking
> for). However, I once went to the dentist to get XRAY's by fancy new
> machine that moves in an arc around entire face, and it malfunctioned
> and started to crush my skull until dentist ran in and stopped it.
> There is also that minor matter of Space Shuttles blowing up every few
> years, despite being undergoing what is arguably one of the most
> rigorous certification processes around.
>
The dentist's XRay machine was either set up incorrectly (perhaps by an
uncertified person?), or operated improperly. As for Shuttles, by and
large they are experimental crafts with many possible points of failure.
The risks are known and willingly undertaken by the participants, just as
are the fliers of experimental aircraft and drivers of experimental
vehicals (racing comes to mind).

> The point is that I that think that the "beware the danger of COTS"
> attitude is too extreme for the actual risk involved. There is always
> some risk.
>
The general public are not willing to take such risks, nor should they be
subjected to them unknowingly. The recent recall of toys and baby
furniture underscores this last point. If I'm not flying an experimental
plane, I don't want the same risk levels as those that do. And, if I *am*
flying an experimental plane, I'd want good knowledge of what makes it
experimental. In the case that you're creating, it would be uncertifiable
components in an otherwise normal aircraft. Like Blanche, that would make
me rather uncomfortable in some flight conditions.

> So I think the same thing could happen in aviation. There is a trade-
> off between pain and pleasure of assumption. There is probably a
> point where the cost would be so low from using (well-engineered) COTS
> components that the risk of using them is superseded by the value that
> they would bring.
>
How would one know if COTS units were "well-engineered", except by trial
and error? Take, for example, the recent problems with the certified G1000
(see other topics about this). The failures were attributed to some
supplied components in an otherwise "well-engineered" design. Now, IMO, if
the design was all that well-engineered, either those units would have
failed on final inspection (the preferable outcome) or the design would
have tolerated the components and operated properly without problems. Take
the certification process out of the equation, and who knows what one
would get?

Well, I have an idea of what one would get. As one who has bought and
built many computers over the years (I build them when my requirements are
more stringent than COTS can deliver), I can tell you that all brands of
either full systems or basic components are not of equal quality. The same
would be true for COTS cockpit instruments.

> This is true for non-critical components in an aircraft, and might be
> true for many critical components.
>
I seriously doubt it.

Neil

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Sep 23, 12:55 pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, Le Chaud Lapin > posted:

> The dentist's XRay machine was either set up incorrectly (perhaps by an
> uncertified person?), or operated improperly. As for Shuttles, by and
> large they are experimental crafts with many possible points of failure.
> The risks are known and willingly undertaken by the participants, just as
> are the fliers of experimental aircraft and drivers of experimental
> vehicals (racing comes to mind).
>
> > The point is that I that think that the "beware the danger of COTS"
> > attitude is too extreme for the actual risk involved. There is always
> > some risk.
>
> The general public are not willing to take such risks, nor should they be
> subjected to them unknowingly. The recent recall of toys and baby
> furniture underscores this last point. If I'm not flying an experimental
> plane, I don't want the same risk levels as those that do. And, if I *am*
> flying an experimental plane, I'd want good knowledge of what makes it
> experimental. In the case that you're creating, it would be uncertifiable
> components in an otherwise normal aircraft. Like Blanche, that would make
> me rather uncomfortable in some flight conditions.

The public is willing to take such risks. Ever technology advance
that posed some risk to human users initially was tested by guinea
pigs. The world is filled with them. Thy average automobile has
quite a few alone. We still use them because, attitudes change over
time, along with improvements in the technology. Instead of constanly
asking, "What if this fails..what if that fails...", reason takes
over, and people start looking at the likelihood of failure, along
with consequences. Eventually, we take for granted certain things
simply won't happen, even though they do occasionally.

Is it true that if COTS components were used, airplanes with fall from
the sky by the 1000's? 100's? The truth is that we do not know,
becuase few people are doing it. Incremental improvement, using
extremely expensive devices, is the alternative, devices that still
fail occasionally.

> > So I think the same thing could happen in aviation. There is a trade-
> > off between pain and pleasure of assumption. There is probably a
> > point where the cost would be so low from using (well-engineered) COTS
> > components that the risk of using them is superseded by the value that
> > they would bring.
>
> How would one know if COTS units were "well-engineered", except by trial
> and error? Take, for example, the recent problems with the certified G1000
> (see other topics about this). The failures were attributed to some
> supplied components in an otherwise "well-engineered" design. Now, IMO, if
> the design was all that well-engineered, either those units would have
> failed on final inspection (the preferable outcome) or the design would
> have tolerated the components and operated properly without problems. Take
> the certification process out of the equation, and who knows what one
> would get?

Well, at least this goes to show that there is no guarantee. Even
certified componenets might fail.

Yes, trial an error tells quite a bit. There is a safe way to do
trial and error (planned testing with test pilot with safety measures)
and a wrong way (let the Wilsons have virgin flight).

> Well, I have an idea of what one would get. As one who has bought and
> built many computers over the years (I build them when my requirements are
> more stringent than COTS can deliver), I can tell you that all brands of
> either full systems or basic components are not of equal quality. The same
> would be true for COTS cockpit instruments.

That's always the case for different manufacturers. That would not
bother me at all. If the more expensive components made me feel
safer, I would buy it. If I knew that the cheaper component would
likely material no material effect, I would buy it.

> > This is true for non-critical components in an aircraft, and might be
> > true for many critical components.
>
> I seriously doubt it.

Most technologies gradually move toward commoditization and ability to
interconnect, mix and match, etc. The rate at which this happens
often has less to do with technical capability, but more toward
perspective and attitude of systems designers.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Le Chaud Lapin > posted:

> On Sep 23, 12:55 pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>> Recently, Le Chaud Lapin > posted:
>
>> The dentist's XRay machine was either set up incorrectly (perhaps by
>> an uncertified person?), or operated improperly. As for Shuttles, by
>> and large they are experimental crafts with many possible points of
>> failure. The risks are known and willingly undertaken by the
>> participants, just as are the fliers of experimental aircraft and
>> drivers of experimental vehicals (racing comes to mind).
>>
>>> The point is that I that think that the "beware the danger of COTS"
>>> attitude is too extreme for the actual risk involved. There is
>>> always some risk.
>>
>> The general public are not willing to take such risks, nor should
>> they be subjected to them unknowingly. The recent recall of toys and
>> baby furniture underscores this last point. If I'm not flying an
>> experimental plane, I don't want the same risk levels as those that
>> do. And, if I *am* flying an experimental plane, I'd want good
>> knowledge of what makes it experimental. In the case that you're
>> creating, it would be uncertifiable components in an otherwise
>> normal aircraft. Like Blanche, that would make me rather
>> uncomfortable in some flight conditions.
>
> The public is willing to take such risks. Ever technology advance
> that posed some risk to human users initially was tested by guinea
> pigs. The world is filled with them. Thy average automobile has
> quite a few alone. We still use them because, attitudes change over
> time, along with improvements in the technology. Instead of constanly
> asking, "What if this fails..what if that fails...", reason takes
> over, and people start looking at the likelihood of failure, along
> with consequences. Eventually, we take for granted certain things
> simply won't happen, even though they do occasionally.
>
Unlike the typical automobile driver, we regularly train for those things
that are unlikely to happen simply because occassionally they do happen.
We are not generally willing to take unnecessary risks that increase the
likelihood of such occurances.

> Is it true that if COTS components were used, airplanes with fall from
> the sky by the 1000's? 100's? The truth is that we do not know,
> becuase few people are doing it.
>
One point that is being overlooked is the low tolerance the public has for
failures in GA. We hear about almost every crash, and every one where
there is a fatality. Every crash brings on a rash of law suits blaming
just about every manufacturer of every component, regardless of how
unrelated to the incident that component may be. Sticking some COTS
component into that environment will only negatively impact GA for the
short duration that the company that provides the component survives the
legal onslaught.

> Incremental improvement, using
> extremely expensive devices, is the alternative, devices that still
> fail occasionally.
>
When you get down to it, this isn't really about how possible it might be
to reduce the price of cockpit instruments, it's about the cost of levels
of comfort. The public has one, component manfacturers another, and pilots
yet another.


>>> So I think the same thing could happen in aviation. There is a
>>> trade- off between pain and pleasure of assumption. There is
>>> probably a point where the cost would be so low from using
>>> (well-engineered) COTS components that the risk of using them is
>>> superseded by the value that they would bring.
>>
>> How would one know if COTS units were "well-engineered", except by
>> trial and error? Take, for example, the recent problems with the
>> certified G1000 (see other topics about this). The failures were
>> attributed to some supplied components in an otherwise
>> "well-engineered" design. Now, IMO, if the design was all that
>> well-engineered, either those units would have failed on final
>> inspection (the preferable outcome) or the design would have
>> tolerated the components and operated properly without problems.
>> Take the certification process out of the equation, and who knows
>> what one would get?
>
> Well, at least this goes to show that there is no guarantee. Even
> certified componenets might fail.
>
This isn't about the possibility of failure as that is inescapable. It's
about cost of the effort that goes into preventing failure and/or
predicting MTBF. Even with certified instruments it isn't a guarantee, but
at least there is some effort to establish those factors.

>> Well, I have an idea of what one would get. As one who has bought and
>> built many computers over the years (I build them when my
>> requirements are more stringent than COTS can deliver), I can tell
>> you that all brands of either full systems or basic components are
>> not of equal quality. The same would be true for COTS cockpit
>> instruments.
>
> That's always the case for different manufacturers. That would not
> bother me at all. If the more expensive components made me feel
> safer, I would buy it. If I knew that the cheaper component would
> likely material no material effect, I would buy it.
>
How would you know?

Certification means that the instrument will perform at a particular level
of accuracy and reliability regardless of who manufactures it. Failures
will still happen, but nothing even remotely close to the level of
unreliability that COTS items deliver.

>>> This is true for non-critical components in an aircraft, and might
>>> be true for many critical components.
>>
>> I seriously doubt it.
>
> Most technologies gradually move toward commoditization and ability to
> interconnect, mix and match, etc. The rate at which this happens
> often has less to do with technical capability, but more toward
> perspective and attitude of systems designers.
>
The bottom line is that you can build your experimental aircraft using any
kinds of mix and match COTS components that you want. However, should you
have an accident, it won't matter how reasonable you thought that approach
was, or even whether those components were at fault.

Neil