Are we moving too fast? Longevity...

[walldan]

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

[Low Pass]

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.

[rleffler]

Originally Posted by wallda

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

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.

[walldan]

Originally Posted by rleffler

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.

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

[YellowJacket RV9]

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

[MikeyDale]

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.

[Raymo]

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.

[jdeas]

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

[Jesse]

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.

[Radioflyer]

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.