Cost of Cockpit Instruments

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-

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.

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-

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)

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!!!)

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-

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.

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/dellsto...=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-

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

"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