Are we moving too fast? Longevity...

I am hopeful some VAF members with more knowledge then I have can shed some light. To give you a bit of my background, I am a young (30's), mechanical engineer who now works in medical research, specifically with bioinformatics (not electronic devices).

Over the last 30 years we have seen an amazing shift from mechanical devices to electric and computer based devices. As I sit in my kitchen the old rotary phone I grew up with is no longer attached to the wall, my wrist watch no longer "ticks", my TV no longer has a physical on/off button I pull out.....

Nowhere is this change more evident than in consumer transportation. My first car was a 1980's GM Suburban. The electrical system was basic and as a teenager I drove it with well over 250,000 miles on. The only reason we stopped driving it was because it rusted out.

More recently my wife and I have had a number of new cars. All of them with complicated electrical systems which basically use CPU's to control everything. Sadly the failure rate we are seeing is frustrating. My current pick up truck is still "new" by my standards but has numerous electrical components which no longer function. We gave up on my wife's SUV a few years back because we were tired of it constantly throwing up random codes for engine service (dealer suggested replacing the main computer... $$$$)

I has having a conversation with my manager, who is in charge of specifying and buying anything technology based for our organization and he made the comment, "when I buy something with a computer in it, I plan on replacing it in 5 years". This got me thinking about aviation.

I am a student pilot. The first plan I was training in was a 1970's Cessna 172. Much of the instrumentation was still factory (which was at the time almost 40 years old).

I am now finishing my lessons in a 162 skycatcher (don't judge... I am a sport pilot to do a medical record nightmare) with a single PFD.

There is no doubt in my mind the new all glass cockpits by Dynon, Garmin, MGL, and others improve safety, provide better information, and can make flying more comfortable. But this comes at a price. Now I don't want to open up a cost for steam vs glass debate... and for this post we can consider them equal.

My concern is longevity. As I read the posts here there are a examples where great technology (VP200) which is no longer being made (the company moved onto better products) is starting to fail and leaving those who chose to integrate them with a costly choice. Are we going to see the same thing with PFD's? I understand all of the big manufactures have great customer support and are quick to resolve issues for new units. But what happens when these units are 10 years old? Will they become disposable items which we upgrade like cell phones? (Being a bit snarky)

I would really like to know that the majority of the $20K+ I invest into a instrument panel will still be functioning in 10, 20, maybe 30 years from now. Or... do we need to start planning for avionics overhauls much like we do for engine overhauls? Should we push the industry to warranty products based on hours of service instead of years of installation? What would sound better to the typical pilot.. a 2 year warranty or a 250 Hour of use warranty?

Daniel

When you figure it out, please pass it along. I'd like to know as well. As for little EXP-AB planes, build for change and expansion. I'm on my fourth panel revision since new.

As for when and what to buy, I look at the second best/newest line of gear. I can't afford the newest, latest. The folks who can will typically will be selling their "obsolete" things when they upgrade. That's what I target. When I change and sell, there's almost always someone looking to move themselves.

I would like to think my Dynon and Garmin devices will be of use and operable in 5-10 years.

But you touched on cell phones. I think that's part of your answer. Look at what flying apps have done for all aviation! Airlines are using iPads. The unbelievable information and technology displayed by my smartphone, with live updates in my cockpit, is simply amazing. And that app is updated monthly or so. That may be more of the future.

Beyond 5-10 years, who knows if little airplanes will even be legal to operate or if gas will swing up to $8-10/gal.

wallda said:

My concern is longevity. As I read the posts here there are a examples where great technology (VP200) which is no longer being made (the company moved onto better products) is starting to fail and leaving those who chose to integrate them with a costly choice. Are we going to see the same thing with PFD's? I understand all of the big manufactures have great customer support and are quick to resolve issues for new units. But what happens when these units are 10 years old? Will they become disposable items which we upgrade like cell phones? (Being a bit snarky)

I would really like to know that the majority of the $20K+ I invest into a instrument panel will still be functioning in 10, 20, maybe 30 years from now. Or... do we need to start planning for avionics overhauls much like we do for engine overhauls? Should we push the industry to warranty products based on hours of service instead of years of installation? What would sound better to the typical pilot.. a 2 year warranty or a 250 Hour of use warranty?

Daniel

Click to expand...

Daniel,

I think you are asking appropriate questions. However, a better question instead of hardware/software longevity, is the viability of the company manufacturing the equipment.

Unfortunately due to the nature of our market, most of the companies are small to medium size businesses. The good news is that we've seen some consolidation. For example, Vertical Power being purchased by Astronics Ballard Technology and Dynon acquiring Advance Flight Systems.

The other side of the coin are companies like Blue Mountain and Chelton.

The other factor to consider is the rate of change in the avionics market. Why the hardware and software may last fifteen years, would you still want to use it? For example, look at Microsoft operating systems. That OS from 15 years ago, doesn't run current applications. We are already seeing that in the EFIS market. Some vendors do better than others when it comes to backwards compatibility, but at some time they have to change the hardware platform to accommodate that rapid pace of software changes.

I think the days of keeping platforms around for extended lifetimes are viable as they were in the past and we need to build that expectation into the operating cost of our aircraft. That coupled with the fact that many homebuilders have to have the latest toys doesn't help much either.

But I also would fret over the decision either. I've seen analysis paralysis prevent people from making decisions.

rleffler said:

Daniel,

I think you are asking appropriate questions. However, a better question instead of hardware/software longevity, is the viability of the company manufacturing the equipment.

Unfortunately due to the nature of our market, most of the companies are small to medium size businesses. The good news is that we've seen some consolidation. For example, Vertical Power being purchased by Astronics Ballard Technology and Dynon acquiring Advance Flight Systems.

The other side of the coin are companies like Blue Mountain and Chelton.

The other factor to consider is the rate of change in the avionics market. Why the hardware and software may last fifteen years, would you still want to use it? For example, look at Microsoft operating systems. That OS from 15 years ago, doesn't run current applications. We are already seeing that in the EFIS market. Some vendors do better than others when it comes to backwards compatibility, but at some time they have to change the hardware platform to accommodate that rapid pace of software changes.

I think the days of keeping platforms around for extended lifetimes are viable as they were in the past and we need to build that expectation into the operating cost of our aircraft. That coupled with the fact that many homebuilders have to have the latest toys doesn't help much either.

But I also would fret over the decision either. I've seen analysis paralysis prevent people from making decisions.

Click to expand...

You bring up a very good point regarding the advances in technology. I will be honest. The other day we were going to go out in a friends 172 to track a VOR. WHY? Because I have never done it. I can't. The 162 doesn't have a Nav Radio. And I want to say I navigated by radio aid at least once.

Back to your point. The new technology has made the old seem obsolete and difficult to use. GPS is the current tech... but what will the future bring.

Do you know the cost breakdown to manufacture a G1000 or some other PFD? I would love to know the % for hardware vs software development. I would really embrace a manufacture who will give us the ability to upgrade avionics. Look at how Tesla is changing cars. They can roll out new feature by connecting your car to the internet.

I am a long way off from buying avionics. Heck, I don't even have my plane to build picked out. (Waiting on PBOR2)... but that is another thread

But I love what the market is doing and would love to find a way to be more involved with it,

Daniel

My gut feeling is that most failures are still mechanical in nature. Solid state electronics on their own are ridiculously reliable when part of a well designed system. Failures are most likely in a mechanical sensor, wiring connection, or due to something like moisture intrusion or mechanical damage. As you said yourself, the 40 year old electronics in that 172 worked just fine. The real issue is the amount of possible failure points resulting from all our new bells and whistles. But very few of those failures are catastrophic. I may lose a CHT reading in flight but who cares. That 172 probably didnt even have a CHT gauge.

I am planning on and expect well more than 3 years of service from my avionics. Heck, my used d10 probably already has 5 years on it. The weakest point in the unit itself, in my guess, would be the display, which should be serviceable.

And lastly, while the EFIS may last 40 years I doubt any of us would go that long without upgrading it based on how fast technology is moving. That makes 40-year reliability mostly a moot point. I'll bet most of us have a 10 year old cell phone in a drawer that works just fine, we just long since upgraded. And experimental gives us the ability to do that relatively inexpensively.

As part of a well designed and appropriately redundant installation I'd take glass over steam any day for reliability and longevity.

Chris

I will be out of date in 10 years but still be light years away from the old basic steam panels of the 70's and I'm bettin there will be plenty of those old steam panels still in use 10 years from now. I bought my Skyview 2.5 years ago and cant believe how many changes has come along since then. Dynon has provided me with all the upgrades with software updates at no charge. Well, except the touch panels I didnt upgrade to. I think the biggest market is the portables like the Ipad or phone apps. Most steam gauge pilots I know are using them.

I am a software engineer during the week and work on a system that has code that was written in the late 80s. We've had to make a few changes over the years to accommodate OS upgrades but the hardware, though faster, is still essentially the same architecture.

As I see it, Dynon and others will continue to add features and functionality and eventually release new hardware that can take advantage of the next new thing that we haven't yet seen.

What is interesting to me is that many of the devices we rely on today (phones, tablets, EFIS, etc.) are built on a Linux foundation, which has been around for well over a decade and continues to evolve to support various new products.

Rate of change

Embedded designs can not be compared to desktop systems. Desktop and multi-purpose devices will always change at a much faster rate to keep pace with new requirements. EFIS systems are based on a smaller well defined set of requirements. I.E. no one is trying to update their Dynon with the latest version of Skype!

As mentioned earlier, more important is the ability to get hardware support. I have many industrial designs still running just fine 20 years after installing them. Like a VOR, their purpose and 'API' has remained unchanged

I agree with much that has already been said. However, I have a few points to add for the thought process.

First, even the most advanced avionics are probably well behind the best computer hardware you can get. Since the hardware manufacturer (or packager, Dynon, AFS, Garmin, etc.) is also writing the software, there is not the worry about older systems not being able to work with the new software. The Dynon D-10A EFIS has been in production with only software updates for around 15 years and is still being produced. For what it does, it is still a great system. While they have improved software to include things like the auto pilot, HS-34, etc, the hardware is virtually unchanged. When they decided to start adding moving map, synthetic vision, etc. they had to design a new generation of hardware that could handle that. The Skyview system has been in production now for many years, probably nearing 10, and it is still considered cutting edge because of the software improvements and added expansion modules and components. You won't expect something like this in the computer industry.

Second, an important consideration is how the company you buy from has handled upgrades and new hardware. Dynon, for example, has precious few orphaned products. The D1, perhaps, could be considered orphaned, because they don't make it anymore, but it's mostly the same as the current D2. The EFIS D10 was replaced with the D10A. GRT's WS screen (which I don't believe is made any more) is compatible with an HXr system, as I understand, so if you want to upgrade, you can keep the WS and add an HXr and they will talk to each other. The AFS 3500 can talk to a 5800, so even though only the 5000 series is currently made, the older systems can be expanded and added to with new equipment. The Garmin G3X and the G3X Touch don't talk to each other, I don't think, but they do share most if not all of the same components. If you have a G3X system and want to change to Touch, you need to replace all screens (a little disappointing), but you don't have to gut the plane to upgrade.

Third, of the big 4 systems mentioned above, there are basically 2 methodologies. Dynon and Garmin are mostly proprietary, being compatible mostly with their brand of modules and components. If you are building a panel from scratch, this is not as big of a deal, especially since they are both adding components and features to expand their systems. AFS and GRT are both much more widely compatible, making them more easily upgraded to, especially if you are upgrading a panel that already has a TruTrak auto pilot, a NavWorx ADS-B transciever, a remote PS engineering audio panel, etc. AFS can even read engine data from a GRT EIS or a Dynon D-series engine monitor and display it on the EFIS and give alarms and so on (an extremely handy feature when considering upgrades).

On a different note, most of the avionics failures I have seen first hand are probably within the first 50 hours from new. That seems to be pretty common with electronics. Components do tend to fail some when they get old, but I see many more units failing when they are new because of a failed board, component, chip, etc.

All of these points are good to consider when thinking through a panel installation, whether new or upgrade.

Daniel, I'm very glad to see a young, technical professional raising the topic of fast moving technology vs the long service life of legacy instrumentation. You fall into a rare class of discerning aviator. Whenever I raise these issues to other aviators, I'm accused of not willing to pay to play and just suffering from generational issues.

The problem as I see it is not so much the technology, but rather the aviation consumer. The modern aviation consumer is a tragic hero, genetically incapable of separating required functionality from technolust. We are all seduced by the promise of lightness and reliability of solid state instrumentation and this technology does deliver. However, we quickly fall prey to larger and multiple screens, redundancy, database upkeep, HITS, safety, etc. (Dasblinkinlight.) Yet, the instrumentation requirements for VFR sport and travel flying are fairly simple, pretty much unchanged from your 40 year old Cessna/Piper. (IFR flying is slightly more instrumentation dependent.) Meanwhile the issue of increased safety of glass panels is still debatable, if you read the research. The aviation consumer seems to automatically want to believe that the newest equipment will be that much safer, if not better. Of course, manufacturers will make changes to products even if no practical improvement is made, simply to keep their market alive. Everyone in aviation admits that the sport is expensive and pilot student starts are way off. Nevertheless, the modern aviator supports an industry that charges multiple thousands of dollars for a radio, an EMS, non-standardized computer screen symbology, stereo audio panel, etc and think they are getting a bargain.

I'm not at all against the strides made in modern avionics. However, as you pointed out, when this costly stuff can't last as long as the round gauges, because the consumer and market is turning over too rapidly, I think we have lost some perspective.

As someone twice your age, I'm not so sure the good old days were so good. When I started driving (1965) any car that made it to 100,000 miles was considered amazing. Now it's routine. As a long time Cessna owner I lost count of the number of times mechanical gyros were overhauled or replaced. And of course it was not if, but when, the dry vacuum pump would quit. I do think the modern glass has an infant mortality issue, and it's true that there can be superfluous information presented, but overall I think it's an amazing improvement from the past. And the cost, in inflation adjusted dollars, is so much less that triple redundancy is easily possible.

Thank You

BobTurner said:

As someone twice your age, I'm not so sure the good old days were so good. When I started driving (1965) any car that made it to 100,000 miles was considered amazing. Now it's routine. As a long time Cessna owner I lost count of the number of times mechanical gyros were overhauled or replaced. And of course it was not if, but when, the dry vacuum pump would quit. I do think the modern glass has an infant mortality issue, and it's true that there can be superfluous information presented, but overall I think it's an amazing improvement from the past. And the cost, in inflation adjusted dollars, is so much less that triple redundancy is easily possible.

Click to expand...

This is one reason I really enjoy the VAF. Someone can post about their perception on something and get a lot of great information with out being attacked.

There are so many good perspectives in the previous posts and I want to thank you all for taking the time to answer. The quote above is particular good. Because from my perspective I commented on how long the "good old fashioned stuff" lasted. But in reality have actually have NO idea how many components were replaced, repaired, and overhauled in the old 172 I used to rent.

I think my bigger concern is two part. The first is supplier longevity and as mentioned in several previous posts it is buyer beware. If you buy from a larger, more well established company you probably have better odds of getting parts and service in the distant future. However even that is no guarantee. Today I had a shock when I found out a part on my 2008 Pick up is No Longer Available. This same part was used thru 2015 and the manufacture shows NO Stock and discontinued. My dealer wouldn't even try to find one. Thank goodness eBay had 3 and I didn't have to have the part custom made.

My other concern is with our society transition to a throw away mentality. Many people in our society must have the best of everything. There is nothing wrong when you can afford it. My fear with aviation is manufactures seeing this as a way to cut corners. I have seen this with consumer appliances. Old appliances lasted forever. The first microwave I ever used is still running at my parents house but my wife and I have gone thru 3 in 6 years. I believe (hope) aviation is different and the big brands are going to continue to put out a quality product. If they don't it will be the end of them.

Daniel

I think that you ate right that our airplanes will get new avionics every 10 yrs or so. Companies will come and go, capabilities will grow exponentially, most of us are suckers for gadgets and want to have the best stuff. So if you lay out $20k which is easy to do, it will likely last about that long. That's the risk most of us are willing to take.

If you buy good steam gauges you will likely have to overhaul them at some point as well, and you won't have nearly the capability and lets face it, for a lot of us geeks having a really good efis is part of the fun and these machines are all about fun. I will be putting a low end efis in my vfr airplane, never even considered steam.

So yes, you risk having a panel that becomes an orphan or obsolete, but you can have a lot of fun till it does. Technology IS moving really fast but nobody can do anything to stop it. The unibomber tried and he was not successful. So don't worry about it, just go fly and have fun.

wallda said:

This is one reason I really enjoy the VAF. Someone can post about their perception on something and get a lot of great information with out being attacked....

Click to expand...

Hang around a while. You're only at post 31.

wallda said:

My fear with aviation is manufactures seeing this as a way to cut corners. I have seen this with consumer appliances. Old appliances lasted forever. The first microwave I ever used is still running at my parents house but my wife and I have gone thru 3 in 6 years. I believe (hope) aviation is different and the big brands are going to continue to put out a quality product. If they don't it will be the end of them.

Click to expand...

This is known as survivorship bias, and does not mean old things were built better on average. It just means a few of them survived, and those are the only things you remember today. Where's the old fridge, oven, water heater, TV, car, washing machine, etc?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Generically, Aviation is an amazing example of this. Airplanes and avionics are not built amazingly well - we just think of them that way because we maintain them (at great expense) and force them to survive because it's cheaper to do that than buy a new one. The only reason you replaced those microwaves instead of fixing them is that they were so inexpensive to purchase that it was cheapest to just buy a new one.

Raymo said:

What is interesting to me is that many of the devices we rely on today (phones, tablets, EFIS, etc.) are built on a Linux foundation, which has been around for well over a decade and continues to evolve to support various new products.

Click to expand...

How about more than 2 decades I built my first Linux machine in 1994!

The market for new and overhauled steam gauges is going to keep falling, especially now that Dynon has broken the barrier to getting non-TSOed instruments installed with an STC. Especially for gyro instruments, you're going to pay more and more and it's going to be harder to find places to do it.

If the Primary Non-Commercial category ever gets implemented then I expect the steam market to all but disappear as the cost of glass falls and steam rises. Once they cross, it's all over except for a niche market of airplanes that can't get glass or people with the desire and cash to stay steam.

Technology

rmartingt said:

The market for new and overhauled steam gauges is going to keep falling, especially now that Dynon has broken the barrier to getting non-TSOed instruments installed with an STC. Especially for gyro instruments, you're going to pay more and more and it's going to be harder to find places to do it.

If the Primary Non-Commercial category ever gets implemented then I expect the steam market to all but disappear as the cost of glass falls and steam rises. Once they cross, it's all over except for a niche market of airplanes that can't get glass or people with the desire and cash to stay steam.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it's interesting that the "enabler" for all of these new avionics is the availability of cheap GPS and motion-sensing chips and display screens which are mass-produced (aka cheap) for cell phones, DVD players, tablets and playstations...

If Dynon had to custom make the above chips and screens we would be paying in the 100's of thousands for avionics.

While I absolutely appreciate and use much of the functionality of the current glass compared to the old steam, it seems that we have moved well beyond the requirements for basic utility. We are now buying the latest stuff just to have the latest stuff. I think that?s fine if that?s your thing, but I?d love to see development of more features ?freeze? and be able to buy a large format glass display that simply provides the basics. A 12 inch or larger, high resolution D100 would likely be ideal for me. That?s why I was initially excited about the Skyview ?light? product, but was let down when I realized it did not even have the functionality of the D10A. That?s a swing and a miss as far as I?m concerned.

How about a low cost, standardized large format display that can talk to a 3rd party IFR navigator and interface with a GPSS autopilot? You can keep your touch screens, moving maps and synthetic vision. My throwaway iPad gives me all that stuff. I want the light weight, reliability and ease of installation the glass offers, but I?d also like it to be relevant long enough to prove it.

Toobuilder said:

While I absolutely appreciate and use much of the functionality of the current glass compared to the old steam, it seems that we have moved well beyond the requirements for basic utility. We are now buying the latest stuff just to have the latest stuff. I think that?s fine if that?s your thing, but I?d love to see development of more features ?freeze? and be able to buy a large format glass display that simply provides the basics. A 12 inch or larger, high resolution D100 would likely be ideal for me. That?s why I was initially excited about the Skyview ?light? product, but was let down when I realized it did not even have the functionality of the D10A. That?s a swing and a miss as far as I?m concerned.

How about a low cost, standardized large format display that can talk to a 3rd party IFR navigator and interface with a GPSS autopilot? You can keep your touch screens, moving maps and synthetic vision. My throwaway iPad gives me all that stuff. I want the light weight, reliability and ease of installation the glass offers, but I?d also like it to be relevant long enough to prove it.

Click to expand...

Agreed. With panels now being software, they're following the same old pattern of getting "feature bloat" ... Certainly seems like there's room for the concept of "multiple editions" (again like many software products) ... Dynon to their credit are doing this with the SE edition!

kamikaze said:

... Dynon to their credit are doing this with the SE edition!

Click to expand...

However, as I pointed out, they removed the ability to talk to an IFR nav. A step backwards from even their first offering, the D10. Fix that oversight, and I'm on board.

I think what I'm really looking for is essentially a generic "six pack in one box" that is capable of supporting IFR ops.

Michael,

The point of SE was to create a very simple user interface, and doing that forced us to make some hard choices on what we interface with because they add buttons and complexity.

You can always buy SkyView without SynVis and a map, which will then interface with an IFR navigator for an HSI, and will be a basic system at a lower price. That's always been the goal of SkyView, to support different choices and missions.

I recognize and can appreciate the difficulty in bringing any new offering to a market which generally clamors for "more".

However, as I look at the still highly capable previous generation offerings from any manufacturer which are now financially "obsolete", I have finally started to think: "yes, enough already". Lock the configuration down and focus on reducing price and increasing reliability. That won't work of course, because the market demands newer and better. I realize people like me are not at all the driving force. I have an iphone 4 and I use perhaps 25% of its capability... yet this thing is considered a dinosaur and is already unsupportable in many ways.

I only hope that the radical development cycle of avionics will flatten out and they will just become LRU's instead of the "next big thing" just before Sun N Fun every year.

Again, no disrespect to those that feel gadgetry for gadgetry's sake is an important part of the hobby... I'm just not among you.

I happen to be working for a small avionics company. From our point of view there are different kinds of devices, and we treat them differently:

There are the 300 dollar traffic displays, which we support as long as we can, but every customer understands that six years later we can't repair his device because we are missing parts, and instead have to offer him a discounted replacement.

Then there is the 1800 dollar radio or the 2000 dollar transponder. There isn't much functionality improvement over time -- unlike your EFIS/PFD. But people do expect them to work and be supported in 20 years from now, and we plan accordingly. That starts with selecting parts that have long term availability for repairs and ends with choosing a selling price which allows us to provide long term support. We recently had to redesign parts of our transponder because a part wasn't available anymore. Totally invisible to customers, but part of the product life cycle.

And finally there is stuff like 5000 dollar glas cockpit devices. Of course people expect them to work for a long time. They expect support, and updates. But they also understand that these things are computers and computer technology evolves at an incredible speed. Again in the design we choose hardware that has guaranteed availabilities of 15 years and more (including the CPU!). We also plan in a way that we can interface new devices with the existing ones (talking about LRUs ...). All this is part of the regular work of avionics people -- in every company.

BobTurner said:

As someone twice your age, I'm not so sure the good old days were so good. When I started driving (1965) any car that made it to 100,000 miles was considered amazing. Now it's routine. As a long time Cessna owner I lost count of the number of times mechanical gyros were overhauled or replaced. And of course it was not if, but when, the dry vacuum pump would quit. I do think the modern glass has an infant mortality issue, and it's true that there can be superfluous information presented, but overall I think it's an amazing improvement from the past. And the cost, in inflation adjusted dollars, is so much less that triple redundancy is easily possible.

Click to expand...

I agree, the old days some long for were not that great. I would not turn the clock back for anything. Viet Nam, chronic job insecurity, rioting in Watts, 2 Kennedy's assassinated, Cuban missile crisis - none of it very pretty.

I just bought a 2016 Honda Pilot after driving the 2006 Pilot 236,000 miles. This one is better yet, bring it in for engine service at 100,000, just change the oil. Consumer products today better than 50 years ago, although cell phones, like computers are thrown away due to technology advances.

The older one is, the greater the amount of change one has to accept or be left behind. Many older person are left behind, some won't use a cell phone much less a computer. Face Book, what's that?

No other generations have had to adjust to change as those born since 1900. Three hundred years ago, a person lived 60 years if lucky and saw very little change. Not so now.

Yes, money spent on avionics today must be considered expendable. ADS-B is evidence how quickly stuff gets old and is useless.

There is plenty of change that is inevitable - ADSB and the like are good examples. We're going to pay that, we get it. But there is a whole bunch that NEVER will change, such as primary flight information. There will be little advances in the format of displaying a horizon, altitude, airspeed, heading, etc. yes, we now have little boxes to fly through, synthetic vision and lots of other "alternatve" methods of showing us how to get from A to B. These alternative methods are "fun" but are they really game changers? In many cases, no. A good example of avionics stability is the EMS - the format is very similar across all manufacturers, and there really has been no change to this format in a LONG time. I cant see any push to provide a "synthetic" EGT display or any other real change in how engine info is presented.

Personally, THAT'S what Id like to see in a PFD. Large format, crisp resolution, useful in IFR, no BS, familiar without reading a 500 page user manual, and supportable for decades.

49clipper

Amen to that, toolbuilder.

Toobuilder said:

Personally, THAT'S what Id like to see in a PFD. Large format, crisp resolution, useful in IFR, no BS, familiar without reading a 500 page user manual, and supportable for decades.

Click to expand...

I agree. But from the perspective of the manufacturers, they need "improved" products to keep the upgrade treadmill running and generate repeat business. I don't fault them at all.

Besides, I don't have to get on the treadmill. But others are welcome to. ;-)

I'm not quite sure the data is there to support the idea that experimental avionics are changing all the time and there's a treadmill of upgrades.

Dynon still sells the D10A that has been on the market since 2004. We've discontinued only one panel mounted product ever (the D10, which had the D10A drop in replacement). SkyView has existed since 2009 and almost all updates have been free software updates. Every product we've made except the D10 can be repaired and supported, and we'll sell you a D10A cheap to fix a broken D10.

We actually pride ourselves on not expecting a customer to rip up a panel every 5 years. When we sell a panel to a customer, the repeat business we get is from his buddy building another plane, not from trying to squeeze that same customer again.

I think there's a bit of associating glass cockpits with tablets, phones, and TV's just because they have a screen, but history shows a bit different. The D10A came out 3 years before the first iPhone, and SkyView 1.5 years before the first iPad, but clearly have not followed the path of those devices.

What is true however is that prospective customers generally ask the question "can your unit do XXX" and those questions get a bit more esoteric each year as everyone tries to decide between brand X, Y and Z. It's rare the customer that shops on user interface simplicity instead of feature sets. But we're trying with SkyView SE- and what's one of the first comments we get? "It doesn't do the one thing I need! Add just this one feature and I'll buy it"

--Ian @ Dynon

dynonsupport said:

I'm not quite sure the data is there to support the idea that experimental avionics are changing all the time and there's a treadmill of upgrades.

Dynon still sells the D10A that has been on the market since 2004. We've discontinued only one panel mounted product ever (the D10, which had the D10A drop in replacement). SkyView has existed since 2009 and almost all updates have been free software updates. Every product we've made except the D10 can be repaired and supported, and we'll sell you a D10A cheap to fix a broken D10.

We actually pride ourselves on not expecting a customer to rip up a panel every 5 years. When we sell a panel to a customer, the repeat business we get is from his buddy building another plane, not from trying to squeeze that same customer again.

I think there's a bit of associating glass cockpits with tablets, phones, and TV's just because they have a screen, but history shows a bit different. The D10A came out 3 years before the first iPhone, and SkyView 1.5 years before the first iPad, but clearly have not followed the path of those devices.

What is true however is that prospective customers generally ask the question "can your unit do XXX" and those questions get a bit more esoteric each year as everyone tries to decide between brand X, Y and Z. It's rare the customer that shops on user interface simplicity instead of feature sets. But we're trying with SkyView SE- and what's one of the first comments we get? "It doesn't do the one thing I need! Add just this one feature and I'll buy it"

--Ian @ Dynon

Click to expand...

Thank you for this information and perspective

dynonsupport said:

I'm not quite sure the data is there to support the idea that experimental avionics are changing all the time and there's a treadmill of upgrades.

Dynon still sells the D10A that has been on the market since 2004. We've discontinued only one panel mounted product ever (the D10, which had the D10A drop in replacement). SkyView has existed since 2009 and almost all updates have been free software updates. Every product we've made except the D10 can be repaired and supported, and we'll sell you a D10A cheap to fix a broken D10.

We actually pride ourselves on not expecting a customer to rip up a panel every 5 years. When we sell a panel to a customer, the repeat business we get is from his buddy building another plane, not from trying to squeeze that same customer again.

I think there's a bit of associating glass cockpits with tablets, phones, and TV's just because they have a screen, but history shows a bit different. The D10A came out 3 years before the first iPhone, and SkyView 1.5 years before the first iPad, but clearly have not followed the path of those devices.

What is true however is that prospective customers generally ask the question "can your unit do XXX" and those questions get a bit more esoteric each year as everyone tries to decide between brand X, Y and Z. It's rare the customer that shops on user interface simplicity instead of feature sets. But we're trying with SkyView SE- and what's one of the first comments we get? "It doesn't do the one thing I need! Add just this one feature and I'll buy it"

--Ian @ Dynon

Click to expand...

True. Sometimes the feature sought is not a matter of a product re-design but
more a reflection of corporate philosophy and risk-tolerance. For example, my "XXX" was synthetic approach to a private airport. After asking this question of all the vendors, I had to eliminate a few companies with excellent products, price point, customer service and product longevity. It's not always engineering that stands in the way of adding "just this one feature" that could've made the sale.

The fact that my avionics suite was lost to a catastrophe last year affords me the opportunity to re-assess my "needs" and preferences, and survey the landscape of offerings in days to come - makes me glad the landscape is evolving under consumer pressure, I must say. There are already new choices I have now that weren't available two years ago.

-Stormy

Toobuilder said:

Personally, THAT'S what Id like to see in a PFD. Large format, crisp resolution, useful in IFR, no BS, familiar without reading a 500 page user manual, and supportable for decades.

Click to expand...

As a Gen X'er I could not agree more. When I browse through various panel setups and their offerings, I reflect on real world experiences and sometimes find myself saying "Good God, I'd hate to be shooting and approach with all of that "clutter" on my pfd." I know these displays can be customized but even the moving artificial horizon in the background of the screen, not to mention synthetic vision, or boxes to fly through are detractors to me. I love that this technology is available to the experimental market for very attractive prices, but more, more, more is not always better.

I'd much rather see a information like this:



Than information like this:

and what's one of the first comments we get? "It doesn't do the one thing I need! Add just this one feature and I'll buy it"

Click to expand...

That is me. And the one Dynon feature that I am waiting for is a dual band 1090-978 ADS-B IN receiver.

ShortSnorter said:

As a Gen X'er I could not agree more. When I browse through various panel setups and their offerings, I reflect on real world experiences and sometimes find myself saying "Good God, I'd hate to be shooting and approach with all of that "clutter" on my pfd."

Click to expand...

I am a Gen Xer too, but I don't think I could disagree much more. I have flown hard IFR with a six-pack and I have flown with a fully modern Skyview, Garmin and AFS system. I have also done it with a GRT-WS, Dynon D10A and a Dynon D-180. I would take the fully modern panel hands down. It can be a bit overwhelming at first, but once you know what information you have available and where to look for it, you learn to focus on what is important for each phase of flight. Without synergic vision you just hope that you have everything tuned and communicating correctly so when you break out you are actually in the vicinity of a runway. With Synthetic vision you still fly the needles, but having a flight path marker that is sitting near the threshold of a runway on the screen is priceless. You don't fly that, you fly the needles. That is just one great confirmation that what you are doing is right. Also, when you break out, you easily know which way to look for the runway without having to think about wind correction angle.

I'm also not a big fan of HITS, but I know that some wouldn't go without it. On an approach it would be nice, but en route it is distracting IMHO.

ShortSnorter said:

As a Gen X'er I could not agree more. When I browse through various panel setups and their offerings, I reflect on real world experiences and sometimes find myself saying "Good God, I'd hate to be shooting and approach with all of that "clutter" on my pfd." I know these displays can be customized but even the moving artificial horizon in the background of the screen, not to mention synthetic vision, or boxes to fly through are detractors to me. I love that this technology is available to the experimental market for very attractive prices, but more, more, more is not always better.

I'd much rather see a information like this:

Than information like this:

Click to expand...

-------------------------
Even though I am a dinosar, I am the other way around. I prefer this:


To this:

Thankfully, we now have a choice as to what works best in our airplane.

I think the real problem is not the rate of advances or that companies come and go. I think that it's the lack of standards in the industry. One example: if my 'steam' airspeed indicator fails and is unrepairable, I can get a replacement even if the original is no longer available. The replacement will fit in the panel with no modification and the connections will be the same.

Now I expect to hear that electronic avionics aren't the same - components differ, how can we expect manufacturers to conform to a standard, yadda yadda. And yet the computer industry has been doing it for decades with few problems. My Surface Pro 3 can still play floppy disks through a drive with an added USB interface. The drive is the same old tech, just the interface added and it works just the same as it did back in the 80s in a PC connected to internal bus. Or look at the cards on motherboards. The standard changed and yet motherboards often supported all types, while card makers went out of their way to ensure their cards would fit standard motherboard configurations. I remember when multi-processor graphics cards came out and you could get essentially two cards slaved together and arranged so they would drop into adjacent slots on motherboards available at the time. One final example: I have a TI-99/4A that I wanted to demo to my class as an example of assembly language on a tightly constrained machine (relatively, compared to modern PCs). It has NTSC video outputs that no TV supports today, and an adapter that was intended to be attached to the antenna inputs of an analog color TV. I had no problem getting an adapter to HDMI and connecting it to my home TV or the overhead projectors in my classroom.

I would have far less angst if the avionics firms would quit using unique connections, unique form factors, etc. and standardize. I am faced with redoing my entire panel to replace my Blue Mountain EFIS, and not just because no other EFIS will fit in the panel space. I also have to redo all the instrumentation, connections to radios, transponder, etc. Nothing is standardized, and whatever I decide to replace it with will have the same problems when it comes time to be replaced in the future.

flion said:

I think the real problem is not the rate of advances or that companies come and go. I think that it's the lack of standards in the industry. One example: if my 'steam' airspeed indicator fails and is unrepairable, I can get a replacement even if the original is no longer available. The replacement will fit in the panel with no modification and the connections will be the same.

Now I expect to hear that electronic avionics aren't the same - components differ, how can we expect manufacturers to conform to a standard, yadda yadda. And yet the computer industry has been doing it for decades with few problems. My Surface Pro 3 can still play floppy disks through a drive with an added USB interface. The drive is the same old tech, just the interface added and it works just the same as it did back in the 80s in a PC connected to internal bus. Or look at the cards on motherboards. The standard changed and yet motherboards often supported all types, while card makers went out of their way to ensure their cards would fit standard motherboard configurations. I remember when multi-processor graphics cards came out and you could get essentially two cards slaved together and arranged so they would drop into adjacent slots on motherboards available at the time. One final example: I have a TI-99/4A that I wanted to demo to my class as an example of assembly language on a tightly constrained machine (relatively, compared to modern PCs). It has NTSC video outputs that no TV supports today, and an adapter that was intended to be attached to the antenna inputs of an analog color TV. I had no problem getting an adapter to HDMI and connecting it to my home TV or the overhead projectors in my classroom.

I would have far less angst if the avionics firms would quit using unique connections, unique form factors, etc. and standardize. I am faced with redoing my entire panel to replace my Blue Mountain EFIS, and not just because no other EFIS will fit in the panel space. I also have to redo all the instrumentation, connections to radios, transponder, etc. Nothing is standardized, and whatever I decide to replace it with will have the same problems when it comes time to be replaced in the future.

Click to expand...

VHS vs BetaMax, MSDOS vs TRSDOS, Laserdisk vs DVD and the list goes on. Eventually an "industry standard" evolves and other standards drop out. The buyers mainly decide what the "industry standard" winds up, which is a good thng.

Jesse said:

I am a Gen Xer too, but I don't think I could disagree much more. I have flown hard IFR with a six-pack and I have flown with a fully modern Skyview, Garmin and AFS system. I have also done it with a GRT-WS, Dynon D10A and a Dynon D-180. I would take the fully modern panel hands down. It can be a bit overwhelming at first, but once you know what information you have available and where to look for it, you learn to focus on what is important for each phase of flight. Without synergic vision you just hope that you have everything tuned and communicating correctly so when you break out you are actually in the vicinity of a runway. With Synthetic vision you still fly the needles, but having a flight path marker that is sitting near the threshold of a runway on the screen is priceless. You don't fly that, you fly the needles. That is just one great confirmation that what you are doing is right. Also, when you break out, you easily know which way to look for the runway without having to think about wind correction angle.

I'm also not a big fan of HITS, but I know that some wouldn't go without it. On an approach it would be nice, but en route it is distracting IMHO.

Click to expand...

To put into context, my post was written the real world IFR mindset. Personally, I don't want my flight critical instruments watered down with ancillary data. To be fair, I don't own or currently fly any of the experimental avionics that were captured in the screen shots.

In other words, I love that all of that "other information" is available, but I would like the option to not see it bundled in with my flight critical data (maybe this already is an option).

By the way what is HITS?

dynonsupport said:

....It's rare the customer that shops on user interface simplicity instead of feature sets. But we're trying with SkyView SE- and what's one of the first comments we get? "It doesn't do the one thing I need! Add just this one feature and I'll buy it" ?..

Click to expand...

I'm well aware that the consumer is driving the show here. I also appreciate that my own requirements conflict, and feature creep is a very easy rabbit hole to fall into. I don't fauult any of the manufacturers for not reading my mind (whatever it is at the moment).

My contribution to this thread is little more than general whining. I think its great that all these features are available to those that want them. 10 years from now the feature set of today is going to seem "quaint" in comparison.

That said, I'll bet that a market exists for a standardized large format "electronic six pack" (not literally, but funcionally) including an HSI that talks to an IFR nav that retails for $999.

I'll bet it would be a gateway product that will drag the last holdouts from their steam panels, and would be the "new standard" for the next generation. Heck, the Horizon product that supports the Stratus is almost there, and it is a free ap!

ShortSnorter said:

By the way what is HITS?

Click to expand...

Highway In The Sky
(Flying through the floating boxes, etc)

Toobuilder said:

That said, I'll bet that a market exists for a standardized large format "electronic six pack" (not literally, but funcionally) including an HSI that talks to an IFR nav that retails for $999.

Click to expand...

The new Garmin G5 looks really promising especially with its ability to "talk" to with more advanced components.

I like its clear, concise display of pertinent information without all of the other bells and whistles.

QUANTUM IT

The next big change in hardware will probably be when we ( the human race) work out the final bits and pieces to get Quantum IT working.
This advancement in computor power will be amazing.
A recent article in Computor Weekly I read describes the processing power like this: ' a computation that would take the life time of the universe to do with current technology will take four months'.... I think we will all need a screen upgrade about then.
"I robot, fly me to Paris... Let me know when we get there, and do all my emails for the next two weeks!"

Toobuilder said:

Highway In The Sky
(Flying through the floating boxes, etc)

Click to expand...

Not to thread drift, features like these are simply amazing and could potentially save your bacon one day if you somehow got in over your head. However, (I don't have the data to back it up) it seems that the easier flying and navigating in adverse conditions becomes, the less "sharp" or less of an understanding of the bigger picture one has to have. By virtue of this technology providing such accurate and valuable data, fundamental skills do not have to be solid which obviously is not a good thing.

I was giving a company checkride to to a career AF, and later career FedEx pilot. He hadn't flown a "small" plane in a while and asked that I put him through the ringer. I tried my best and gave him non-standard holds at random intersections with altitude changes, etc... The way he flew (no AP) and handled the mental math, calculations, holds, etc was simply amazing. My point in this personal example is, all of this gee whiz technology is great but if you lost the HIT or mangenta line, are skills where they need to be?

ShortSnorter said:

The new Garmin G5 looks really promising especially with its ability to "talk" to with more advanced components.

I like its clear, concise display of pertinent information without all of the other bells and whistles.

Click to expand...

Yes, something like that in a 10 or 12 inch flat display would be great.

ShortSnorter said:

To put into context, my post was written the real world IFR mindset.

Click to expand...

So was my post.

ShortSnorter said:

My point in this personal example is, all of this gee whiz technology is great but if you lost the HIT or mangenta line, are skills where they need to be?

Click to expand...

The same thing I heard when I first started flying (1974) from "very old time" pilots about the new fangled VOR's, ILS' and other electronic navigation equipment. Bottom line is if you don't stay proficient, skills fade regardles of equipment available.

Having flown lots of actual hard IFR with both systems, I am completely sold on the newer dislays. But everyone has his preferences which is the best part. You can use the option best suited to your preferences, an option that was not available just a few years ago.