Are Glass Panels Really Unsafe

[rickmellor]

Tanker Nav

The story about the F-22's and the little date glitch is so crazy sounding that I want to back it up. Check out this article or you can find more with a quick search.

-Rick

 

[Ralph Kramden]

A few informal comments...

This event highlights one big weakness with the classical DO-178B approach to software certification. . .

I have been on the F-22 software program. Twice. It was horrendous. It doesn't suprise me in the least that they had that problem. They have had many worse. For a while there, they were lucky if the flight software went for a whole 20 minutes without crashing. Nuff said.

DO-178B programs are only as good as the people running them. Some programs are a total joke, others are pretty good. A military program that says it is doing DO-178B but then does not use the FAA as the certifying agency is probably in for some big trouble. It is very easy for a program to completely avoid the spirit of DO-178B and produce lousy avionics software, just like it is very easy for a company to "achieve" CMMI level 5 and not actually ever produce any software at all. DO-178B does not require that you produce smart efficient software, it just requires that you follow a process correctly. The resulting software can be foul smelling garbage, but rest assured it is foul smelling garbage that has been closely scrutinized and smelled by many people before being flown.

Talented engineers make good avionics software. A company that recognizes good engineering talent and practices will produce good software, companies that promote unqualified and untalented engineers into lead positions too early produce poor software. Unfortunately, in this Windows/Linux age most of our younger software engineers are sorely lacking talent. They don't understand what is is to program without a multitasking operating system and multi-gigabytes of memory and unlimited processor speed. For them everything is a "wizard" or an "engine" and all problems are solved with a perl program or 100 interacting processes on top of layers of third party produced "middleware". Yuck.

Worst of all, few, very few avionics software engineers are pilots or have any real passion for flight. They might as well have applied for a job writing software for Tivo, Yahoo, telecomms or PC Games, but they happened to send a resume to Lockheed or Rockwell or Honeywell while they were in the job search. Nothing wrong with doing any of that work if that's what you do - I just feel that software engineers who work on avionics software should be working on avionics software because they are good at it and have a passion for flight.

So what was this thread about again? Oh yeah, I remember. I vote that glass panels are probably a good thing for safety - if they are programmed by a talented engineer with a passion for flight.

REK

 

[Rainier Lamers]

Ralph,
I read your post with great interest and severe nodding of the head (in the prefered up/down direction). Your comments are smack-bang bulls eye.
This is EXACTLY how it is in reality. I simply cannot even add to this.

Rainier
(CEO MGL Avionics)

I have been on the F-22 software program. Twice. It was horrendous. It doesn't suprise me in the least that they had that problem. They have had many worse. For a while there, they were lucky if the flight software went for a whole 20 minutes without crashing. Nuff said.

REK

 

[rickmellor]

So it's the same thing

Ralph, that's a little disappointing. I do consumer software for PC ... probably one of the least resilient types of software. Most of our practices revolve around agile-style methodologies because time to market is a chief motivator. I've always had this grand vision of life on defense contracts doing cutting edge military implementations and all the rigor and dedication that goes into it. If what you describe is true, the projects are subject to the same variables of talent/dedication/constraints that we have on the consumer side and that's a little scary. I thought the DoD oriented methodologies (I don't know them) would manage out these problems.

To put this back into context for this thread, this is a strong indication that any EFIS product selection that you make needs be done based on solid research. Get to know the company, know the customers and understand the problems. Once you decide that you're comfortable with the engineering practices and customer orientation of the company, the rest is just finding the right tradeoff between cost/schedule/performance.

I believe (I believe, I believe!!) solid state electronics are as reliable as anything ... IF they are properly engineered. Faults can occur in any system so in my mind it all comes down to proven performance in the field and accessibility / responsiveness of the supplier.

-Rick

 

[kentb]

Kevin, my boss doesn't agree with you....

Bottom line - you can only foresee the things that you foresee. No matter what standard the code is written to, there will be bugs that don't show up until it is in service, because no one foresaw this particular set of circumstance. Expect the unexpected. Have backups, or a fall back plan. Trust, but verify.

We usually have a block of time in each project to:
"resolve unknown issues".

Kent

 

[nicolcarstens]

Working 8 to 5...

Hi Rick and Ralph,

Unfortunately I too have to agree with every word Ralph had to say. I come from a military aerospace background - designing guidance and control systems. I know the machine.

Ralph, that's a little disappointing... I've always had this grand vision of life on defense contracts doing cutting edge military implementations and all the rigor and dedication that goes into it.-Rick

Sad but true. I would like to believe that a guy like Burt Rutan left for the same reasons... There is little thanks for true passion, commitment and creativity in a strict paper driven state-political-military machine. (maybe all of this might not be true in the USA... but I doubt it. Sounds like Ralph and I worked for the same place!)

Sure there is cutting edge technology, but man: does it come at a price and at its own pace!

I thought the DoD oriented methodologies (I don't know them) would manage out these problems.-Rick

Rules are enforced rigorously - but the rules are only as good as the people who designed them (and maintains them - if at all possible). Sure: these methodologies will take care of a lot of the mistakes made by engineers that are just keeping seats warm... but no process is idiot proof! The talent, skill, experience and commitment of the people involved will determine the level of success... (at least this is true for SW development from my experience - maybe not so much for HW development and production) ...

Regards,
Nicol.
Engineer with MGL Avionics

 

[SvingenB]

Interesting stuff

Tony Spicer in his Sonex advertising movie tells about when he wanted to install a solid state horizon, but had to abandon it altogether. The manufactorer was not able, after several trials, to make it work satisfactory on a slanted panel.

I would believe that some simple cosine tranformations somewhere in the unit would fix the stuff ? or that the manufactorer had at least made it clear that it will not work on a slanted panel, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that the basic robustness you would normally expect from any instrument, simply was not there. These kind of problems happends all the time in all technologies due to inexperienced engineers or too little knowledge of real life operation conditions. Normally most of them are sorted out already from the start before anything has been made, and some later from testing in real life conditions.

The main problem with glass panels therefore seems to be that glass panels, both hardware and software is more of a cumputer thing than an aviation thing. This only means one thing; they cannot be trusted to operate satisfactory in a real life installations with the reliability and robustness you would expect.

 

[nicolcarstens]

Design error?? Installation errors? Pilot error!

I would believe that some simple cosine tranformations somewhere in the unit would fix the stuff ?

Sure: "trivial" transformation matrix. But I guess it was not part of the design requirement?! I would not say there is something "wrong" with the product ... as long as the designer made it clear that the customer is using it in a way it was not designed to be used! This could pass as a "bad" installation...

These kind of problems happends all the time in all technologies due to inexperienced engineers or too little knowledge of real life operation conditions.
...
This only means one thing; they cannot be trusted to operate satisfactory in a real life installations with the reliability and robustness you would expect.

How did you get to this conclusion?? The technology is not the problem here, but the design team and/or the requirement specification and/or the installation, not so?

Go look at that picture of the EFIS vs steam again (few posts back), and tell me "computer things" are bad and mechanical systems are good (with a straight face).

Kind Regards,
Nicol.
Engineer with MGL Avionics.

PS: ... don't confuse an EFIS with the "thing" on your desk... If computer HW and SW was designed application specific, the world would be a lot better place...

 

[N395V]

This only means one thing; they cannot be trusted to operate satisfactory in a real life installations with the reliability and robustness you would expect.

I do believe that experience proves this not to be correct and there is indeed no body of subjective evidence to support this conclusion.

 

[SvingenB]

Sure: "trivial" transformation matrix. But I guess it was not part of the design requirement?! I would not say there is something "wrong" with the product ... as long as the designer made it clear that the customer is using it in a way it was not designed to be used! This could pass as a "bad" installation...

How did you get to this conclusion?? The technology is not the problem here, but the design team and/or the requirement specification and/or the installation, not so?

I'm not sure you understood me correct. What I basically mean, with some other words, is that a general computer engineer (software/hardware) with no pilot experience is no better fit making an EFIS than a general mechanical engineer with no pilot experience is designing an aeroplane. A pilot, proffesional or amateur like most of us, with some basic degree in engineering would stand a much better chance of making a good product. The reason is requirement, specifications, robustness etc. To make a good and robust product you must be able to ask the correct questions, not merely make a solution according to some standard and a set of requirements made by others (this is basically what differentiate a good/excellent and an average/unexperienced engineer). I have worked in R&D for almost 20 years, so in all modesty, I believe i know a thing or two about this.

Go look at that picture of the EFIS vs steam again (few posts back), and tell me "computer things" are bad and mechanical systems are good (with a straight face).

Kind Regards,
Nicol.
Engineer with MGL Avionics.

PS: ... don't confuse an EFIS with the "thing" on your desk... If computer HW and SW was designed application specific, the world would be a lot better place...

I wouldn't be so sure. I only fly VFR and keep my eyes outside of the cockpit most of the time (at least I try to ) In my requirements for instruments, readability is way up there. I want to be able at a short glance to see what the speed, alt and RPM is. So far have have not seen any EFIS that can compete with round analog gauges in terms of readability. It is not without reason that automotive instruments, although fully digital, have analog gauges and dials of the clock type.

For instance, the CHT/EGT on the Rotax in the Zephyr I am flying is digital numbers that alternate between front and back zylinders. They are difficult to read in sunlight and it is rather confusing and take time to get a mental picture of what the temp is on all four zylinders due to the alternate display and digital numbers.

Another example is on my GPS in my car. The GPS will warn me about speed cameras with a flashing speed limit on the display and an audible warning. This looks good, since both the flashing and the sound calls for my attention. The stupid thing about this is the flashing, requiring me to stare at the GPS for at least a couple of seconds on average so I can see what the speed limit actually is between the flashing, and in turn make the proper adjustments.

Anyway, my reaction was that the above posts suggests that EFISes are (mostly??, sometimes??) made by people with little adequate training and engineering experience and zero piloting experience. Then I say that equipment made under such circumstances are way below the standard of equipment made under optimal circumstances. Then, given the fact that we are flying experimental aeroplanes with experimental (uncertified) equipment, can you by looking at the screen of the EFIS say that this one is good and that one is bad? No you can't. Therefore they cannot be trusted, and you would need a backup of some kind.

 

[Rainier Lamers]

Anyway, my reaction was that the above posts suggests that EFISes are (mostly??, sometimes??) made by people with little adequate training and engineering experience and zero piloting experience. Then I say that equipment made under such circumstances are way below the standard of equipment made under optimal circumstances. Then, given the fact that we are flying experimental aeroplanes with experimental (uncertified) equipment, can you by looking at the screen of the EFIS say that this one is good and that one is bad? No you can't. Therefore they cannot be trusted, and you would need a backup of some kind.

Hmm,
I'll have to break in here if you don't mind.
I think I speak for all of us "little" EFIS designers and manufacturers in this case, MGL, Dynon, GRT... - you will find all of us VERY involved with flying. In fact, we are so enthusiastic about flying that we give up our well paying R&D jobs to start risky ventures making EFIS instruments. Granted, your comments are likely valid for the big guys, but certainly not for us - in fact they hurt slightly.
Even my wife Ria who handles all the admin and book keeping holds a pilots license.
Also, please do not confuse "certified" with "reliable". The two have little to do with each other. There is a lot of uncertified stuff out there that is very good indeed, most likely your aircraft included.

Reliability and usability both come from good design by people that understand what they are doing and are not happy with bad compromises. Reliabilty is therafter dependent on absolute attention to detail during the many stages of manufacturing - from supply to shipping. Get all of this right and keep your product dynamic by listening to your customers which are all flyers as well. Most likely you, the customer has a better idea on a certain operational feature than what we had when we made it (despite the fact that we fly too). That is why you should tell us. If we like the idea - we put it in. Simple.

I am the designer of Enigma. I fly a dual Enigma setup in my plane. Every single flight I do is a test flight. A very critical one. I'm the guy that uses my own EFIS all the time - If I don't like something - I go home and change it.
At this point I have designed some 45 electronic flight instrumentation systems in one form or another. At least another 1/2 dozen are on the table right now - and all are continously updated with new technology as it becomes available and it makes sense to change.
Other EFIS companies (at least the small ones) will be very similar. We are very proud of what we do, we love great feedback from our customers and we react fast and furious if we hear of a problem. If a customer is not happy - neither are we. That is the plain truth.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

 

[thallock]

... What I basically mean, with some other words, is that a general computer engineer (software/hardware) with no pilot experience is no better fit making an EFIS than a general mechanical engineer with no pilot experience is designing an aeroplane. A pilot, proffesional or amateur like most of us, with some basic degree in engineering would stand a much better chance of making a good product.

...

I have worked in R&D for almost 20 years, so in all modesty, I believe i know a thing or two about this.

Well, SvingenB, after nearly 20 years, you seem to have missed noticing a few things about engineering. And, that is that most of the engineers who design advanced products cannot afford to actually own them. Many never even get to actually operate equipment that they have designed, or been part of the design.

From your logic, I guess you would also say that the engineers who designed all of the hardware and software that sent the Astronauts to the moon could not have done a good job because none of them ever rode in a capsule. By that same reasoning, Burt Rutan was a poor choice as chief designer on Space Ship 1 because he never flew it. This logic is flawed, to say the least.


Tracy (programming since 1969, and know a few things about engineering ).

 

[SvingenB]

From your logic, I guess you would also say that the engineers who designed all of the hardware and software that sent the Astronauts to the moon could not have done a good job because none of them ever rode in a capsule. By that same reasoning, Burt Rutan was a poor choice as chief designer on Space Ship 1 because he never flew it. This logic is flawed, to say the least.


Tracy (programming since 1969, and know a few things about engineering ).

Regarding proffesionality, an organization may very well be 100 times as proffesional as one single individual could ever be (Apollo program). Yet an organization may also be 100 times worse than even the worst individual (Challenger). I think you are stretching it a tiny bit too far. Not a single person ever flew with V1 and V2 either, yet their primitive "computers" guided them to their targets every time. The apollo program, one of the greatest achievement in human history, can hardly be compared to making an EFIS for experimental amateur built aeroplanes.

Burt Rutan is a design genious in aviation, but I'm 100% sure that he never had been able to successfully design SaceShipOne if that were his first project ever.

Granted, your comments are likely valid for the big guys, but certainly not for us - in fact they hurt slightly.
...
...
Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

I am sorry, that was not intended at all. But You didn't disagree with the notion that some (a lot in fact) of the software made for aviation is substandard within any type of quality measurement.

That you trust your products is all very fine, but if you want someone else to trust them, you have to prove somehow that they are good enough. Certification is the officially accepted method to prove just that.

I fly an uncertified aeroplane with an uncertified engine all the time. Personally I do not see any risk involved in using an EFIS when flying VFR, and certainly not when having a basic backup GPS. On the other hand, if i were to fly IFR, I would not trust an experimental EFIS, in fact I would consider that of the same risk as flying single engine across the atlantic ocean and start experimenting with different unapproved and unknown fuels halfway across.

 

[nicolcarstens]

Lack of training and experience as engineer and pilot??

Me again,

I'm not sure you understood me correct.

Very possible. If so: sincere apologies. I hope we can still walk away as friends after this "debate"?

Unfortunately I do have one question left:

Anyway, my reaction was that the above posts suggests that EFISes are (mostly??, sometimes??) made by people with little adequate training and engineering experience and zero piloting experience.

Where did you find this??

I NEVER walk around with my degree (except on my way to a job interview) ... but you are making it difficult now! I would be the first one to acknowledge: textbook knowledge is no replacement for experience... but you raised the question of training...

Nicol,
MScEng (Aerospace Control and Electronics)(Cum Laude)

PS: BTW Rainier has about 35 years experience in embedded electronics HW and SW... and he is an AP on mechanical and electrical systems. I can assure you it is not his first project! That should settle the question as to experience!!

 

[kentb]

Things are getting a little heavy around here....

Tracy (programming since 1969, and know a few things about engineering ).

Tracy, my teletype just ran out of paper tape. You got any in your closet?

Kent

 

[SvingenB]

Where did you find this??

Furter up there when referring to the F-22 and the posts following.

It seems to me that you MGL persons are reading things between the lines I have written that simply is not there.

 

[thallock]

Kent,

Yeah, I have some, but I am hanging on to it in case the Museum of Computer Sciences happens to loose their last sample. Same as my SOL16. You never know when those things will be worth something, again. You may want to stash a few floppies, just so you can show your grand kids in a few decades.

Tracy.

 

[nicolcarstens]

Hi B Svingen,

It seems to me that you MGL persons are reading things between the lines I have written that simply is not there.

Ok. Well, like I said: if that is the case, then I apologize. We might have misunderstood you...

From statements like "Certification is the officially accepted method to prove just that" I got the feeling you felt small companies are bad. Implying that products from big companies (with a lengthy certification process) is flawless. It is unfortunately something that people love throwing around! Looking at your posts more carefully, you did not play DoD off against small companies - although some other posts did discuss such differences. You are simply saying EFIS systems are all somewhat suspect / not trust worthy (because clearly there are problems at all levels of the game). You are questioning all EFIS systems because of some bad engineering examples?

I think I understand your objection. Apologies.

Mind if we/I leave it at that? I think this has been a long, interesting thread. Interesting perceptions have been shared. Some good arguments, and some confusing statements/claims at times. But if all else fails: it surely got us all thinking.



Friends??



Kind Regards,
Nicol.
Engineer with MGL avionics.

PS: I hate being referred to as a "hobbyist" because I work for a small company... But the products will do the talking from here!!

 

[SvingenB]

No problems Nicol I guess I just write in confusing ways.

 

[nicolcarstens]

No problems Nicol I guess I just write in confusing ways.

It does not always take much for a small misunderstanding to blow up. Especially if you are not listening carefully to each person.

I think it went wrong after post #57 in this thread. You were not making a statement, but rather drawing a conclusion based on posts of others... Some of us got emotional about the conclusion (not looking at the root)...

Nevertheless: it has been interesting.

I'm off to bed.

Cheers,
Nicol.
... still an engineer with MGL ...

 

[kentb]

Kent,

Yeah, I have some, but I am hanging on to it in case the Museum of Computer Sciences happens to loose their last sample. Same as my SOL16. You never know when those things will be worth something, again. You may want to stash a few floppies, just so you can show your grand kids in a few decades.

Tracy.

Oh yea, back when floppies were floppy. I through away all my 8 inch ones. I should have saved some to show off. Oh well I still a couple of boxes of 5 inch ones.

Kent

 

[Ralph Kramden]

Oh yea, back when floppies were floppy. I through away all my 8 inch ones. I should have saved some to show off. Oh well I still a couple of boxes of 5 inch ones.

Kent

Floppies? Hehe... I remember programming PDP-8s with the toggle switches on the front panel. Magnetic core memory, baby! I was a power user with a thermal paper teletypewriter with a 1200 baud acoustic modem hacking into Bell Labs and Fermilab in the 70's!

--REK

 

[Ironflight]

Floppies? Hehe... I remember programming PDP-8s with the toggle switches on the front panel. Magnetic core memory, baby! I was a power user with a thermal paper teletypewriter with a 1200 baud acoustic modem!

--REK

Atari 400....with a cassette drive....programmed it in machine language to learn how computers work when I got out of school with an Aero degree and foudn out my first assignm,ent was to understadn the Spacelab Computer system....I ahd to save for months to buy a flopy drive for the Atari, and it rarely worked!

Good times....

Paul

 

[Ralph Kramden]

Atari 400....with a cassette drive.... Good times....

Paul

I have two still in the garage with the tape drive and the Star Raiders cartridge. I had programmed it to generate morse code practice back when I was trying to get my ham license. I gave the Commodore 64 away to missionaries in the 80's. I had used it to send and receive teletype over shortwave.

--REK

 

[Ralph Kramden]

Atari 400

Atari 400....with a cassette drive....programmed it in machine language . . .

You know, getting this thread slightly back on track, I bet I could program one of the Ataris to be an EFIS. I still have the old programming manuals ("De Re Atari" or some such). I would be able to wire up and program some sort of interface to the sensors out of its parallel port. It would be a cool novelty...

--REK

 

[nicolcarstens]

More F22 embarrassment!

Hi guys,

I know I said I am calling it a day on this one... but I just had to add this one! Enjoy!

http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce05032006.html

"Last week, Lockheed Martin announced that its profits were up a hefty 60% in the first quarter. The company earned $591 million in profit on revenues of $9.2 billion. Now, if the company could just figure out how to put a door handle on its new $361 million F-22 fighter, its prospects would really soar.

On April 10, at Langley Air Force Base, an F-22 pilot, Capt. Brad Spears, was locked inside the cockpit of his aircraft for 5 hours. No-one in the U.S. Air Force, or from Lockheed Martin, could figure out how to open the aircraft's canopy.

At about 1:15 PM, chainsaw-weilding firefighters from the 1st Fighter Wing finally extracted Spears after they cut through the F-22's three-quarter inch thick polycarbonate canopy.

Total damage to the aeroplane, according to sources inside the Pentagon: $1.28 million. Not only did the firefighters ruin the canopy, which cost $286,000, they also scuffed the coating on the airplane's skin, which will cost about $1 million to replace."

Go have a look at the photos...

 

[Rainier Lamers]

You know, getting this thread slightly back on track, I bet I could program one of the Ataris to be an EFIS. I still have the old programming manuals ("De Re Atari" or some such). I would be able to wire up and program some sort of interface to the sensors out of its parallel port. It would be a cool novelty...

--REK

8085 ?
OK that takes me back a bit.
Hmm, let's see. I'll have to cut back a bit on the graphics, perhaps the 3D terrain is going to be a little much at the high frame rates (it's mostly assembler on a 200 Mhz ARM9 RISC running directly from single cycle TCM (tightly coupled memory - 5ns cycles !)).
But we can simplify a couple of things, throw a couple of megs of RAM out.
****, my first computer was a Sinclair ZX-81 and it could do chess in 2KBytes of RAM - OK, it was easy to beat but that's not necessary a bad thing
I wrote space invaders for a TRS-80 color (4 colors including black !).
Well, I'm using state-of-the-art CPUs now (650Mhz ARM11 is next, as soon as I can get my hands on one) but I'm still programming in much the same way I did on the old Z80. Except I wrote my own compilers and development tools so I can directly control every single byte of code running on these machines. Zero third party stuff on these babies ! If there is a bug - it's my bug. Every time. But that's not a bad thing either.

Amazing just what you can do with these new processors if you care NOT to run under a heavyweight operating system...

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

Oh yes, the ZX-81 despite its simplicity loved crashing if you even just looked at it sideways - even a iffy PC (like the 3Ghz 64 bit Athlone I am typing this on) is MUCH better in that regard. Despite Micro$oft.

 

[N941WR]

Floppies? Hehe... I remember programming PDP-8s with the toggle switches on the front panel. Magnetic core memory, baby! I was a power user with a thermal paper teletypewriter with a 1200 baud acoustic modem hacking into Bell Labs and Fermilab in the 70's!

--REK

Now you are bringing back memories! Only we used to use a 300 baud acuoustic modem and 8" floppies for storage. of course that was on a CPM system and I wrote an entire payroll system in FORTRAN. Now, as a CTO they don't let me touch that stuff any more and for good reason.

The funny thing is everyone on this list (in the states) gets the results of some FORTRAN code I wrote in the early 80's every sunday. Can you guess what that might be? (Talk about drift!)

 

[Ralph Kramden]

Can I come and work for you?

. . .perhaps the 3D terrain is going to be a little much at the high frame rates (it's mostly assembler on a 200 Mhz ARM9 RISC running directly from single cycle TCM (tightly coupled memory - 5ns cycles !)).
. . .

Can I come and work for you?




--REK

 

[Rainier Lamers]

CP/M !!!
Now that brings a tear to my eye...
A fully functional operating system with file system in 4KBytes (6K if you include the CCP). Reliable as duct tape.
Those where the days.
20 years ago I designed a dual processor Z80 system running CP/M. A stagering 8 of them where built (for a special pupose). Used the prototype for many years as comms protocol monitor. Retired it long ago

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

Now you are bringing back memories! Only we used to use a 300 baud acuoustic modem and 8" floppies for storage. of course that was on a CPM system and I wrote an entire payroll system in FORTRAN. Now, as a CTO they don't let me touch that stuff any more and for good reason.

The funny thing is everyone on this list (in the states) gets the results of some FORTRAN code I wrote in the early 80's every sunday. Can you guess what that might be? (Talk about drift!)

 

[jcoloccia]

Floppies? Hehe... I remember programming PDP-8s with the toggle switches on the front panel. Magnetic core memory, baby! I was a power user with a thermal paper teletypewriter with a 1200 baud acoustic modem hacking into Bell Labs and Fermilab in the 70's!

--REK

You had toggle switches? All we had was dirt. It was good enough for us and we liked it.

 

[Ralph Kramden]

I have memories of IBM terminals, keypunch machines and cards and some guy in an office whose job it was to load the cards into the reader for you and then later tear off the paper from the line printer and put it into a slot in the wall for you. I seem to remember that on some keyboards you didn't have either a "1" key or an "i" key - I can't remember - you were supposed to use "i's" when you needed a one.

--REK

 

[N941WR]

I have memories of IBM terminals, keypunch machines and cards and some guy in an office whose job it was to load the cards into the reader for you and then later tear off the paper from the line printer and put it into a slot in the wall for you. I seem to remember that on some keyboards you didn't have either a "1" key or an "i" key - I can't remember - you were supposed to use "i's" when you needed a one.

--REK

I think that was an L or 1 and that keyboard was called a typewriter.

This is too funny. I started life as a graphics programmer back in the day when if you could figure out how to rotate a wire box you where hot sh..

My senior project was drawing stress strain diagrams for beams with different loading, modulis of eleacticity, cross sections, etc. VERY high tech stuff for the day. Now you don't even think about that stuff when using ACAD or some of the other programs.

BTW, do you remember PIP and Gil Ward (The god of CP/M)? I wonder what happened to him.

On my desk at home I have punch card and a metal card plate as a soviner from days gone by.

Ok, I'm feeling VERY old!

 

[Ralph Kramden]

. . .On my desk at home I have punch card and a metal card plate as a soviner from days gone by.

Ok, I'm feeling VERY old!

I remember getting the issue of Popular Electronics where they showed you how to build your own computer. Toggle switches in the front. Too bad I didn't save that one. And then sometime later Heathkit came out with it's line of kit built computers...

 

[N941WR]

And then sometime later Heathkit came out with it's line of kit built computers...

Been there, done that.

Now, I kind of like not knowing anything about computers.

 

[Rainier Lamers]

OK, this thread is getting waaayyy out of hand.
Guys, you make me feel old. Very old. Yesterday I was young. Now I'm old. Aaahhhhhh !!!!

My guys here are following this thread and are starting to look at me funny. Ruined ! Utter Ruin !

Rainier Lamers
CEO MGL Avionics

 

[Rainier Lamers]

Can I come and work for you?



--REK

Yes, but you won't like it.
Our R&D is run along the lines of a Roman slave galley.
A set of drums is used to keep the pace and a whip is used as motivation. Payment is in the form of stale bread and thin soup.
Employee of the month gets to sleep right side up - everybody else sleeps hanging by their feet...

Nah, not that bad...

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

 

[Ralph Kramden]

Yes, but you won't like it.
Our R&D is run along the lines of a Roman slave galley.
A set of drums is used to keep the pace and a whip is used as motivation. Payment is in the form of stale bread and thin soup.
Employee of the month gets to sleep right side up - everybody else sleeps hanging by their feet...

Nah, not that bad...

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

Oh, so in other words, you have modeled your employee relations along the lines of Raytheon.

 

[nicolcarstens]

How big is that EFIS??

My guys here are following this thread and are starting to look at me funny.

Now let's not blame the thread for that! We know your dark CP/M secrets!

I think you "experienced" guru's should start a new thread: "You remember the days... (when EFISes could not fit into a 747 - let alone not being reliable because of biological BUGS)"...

And by the way: I quite like the soup! But then I am a sucker for pain...

One last thing with regards to age... In Rainier's defense: he started REALLY young! (I guess it was a mistake to call it 35 years of embedded experience... let's just say: electronics, mostly embedded systems!)

Cheers,
Nicol...
... happy to be a slave at MGL Avionics...

 

[johnp]

ot -- trs-80 cc

Rainier wrote:

I wrote space invaders for a TRS-80 color (4 colors including black !).

yeah, and that wasn't even a real color mode. that mode was supposed to be monochrome. it's just that the original color computer had so much 3.58 Mhz noise on the motherboard that it didn't shut down the color killer in the tv set, so it aliased. i bet if you hit reset "red" and "blue" would swap sometimes.

 

[Ralph Kramden]

Unimplemented opcodes!!!

Do you remember Commodore 64 books that explains some of the unimplemented /unintended /undocumented opcodes that their processor had and suggesting cute ways these undocumented opcodes could be used?

But what really makes one feel old... I had a job at MIT some time back and got to wander about their library. There they all were - all the textbooks I read when I was in college as a computer science major. But something was wrong - all the textbooks had the wrong colors on the covers. I was so old I could remember what the covers looked like when they were new (!)

--REK

 

[Rainier Lamers]

Do you remember Commodore 64 books that explains some of the unimplemented /unintended /undocumented opcodes that their processor had and suggesting cute ways these undocumented opcodes could be used?

--REK

Somehow me thinks we're on the wrong list.
But I guess, given the current thread around EFIS and using PDP-11s to drive them (or stuff of that generation). No, I did not now about undocumented 6502 opcodes - never used that processor. There's plenty of them in the Z80 though, very few are really usefull though.

You know, there was a Cray XMP for sale not long ago. For next to nothing. I was highly tempted to buy the thing and put it in my living room. The only super computer designed to be useful as furniture. Wife objected. Oh well...

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

 

[jdmunzell]

Let's play Devil's Advocate here!!!

Wow...what an interesting thread! I'm surprised however that nobody has mentioned something else pretty basic!

Comparing the safety aspects of glass vs round dials and IMC flying and the like can suddenly take a back seat when the one single engine powering our RVs decides to go on holiday!

Perhaps this is where ones' situational awareness (SA) can help the most. Knowing at the push of a button ( ie. glass technology) where any quick diversion airport is located relative to your nose of the aircraft could make a big difference in the outcome of a engine out emergency. Not that tracking your progress on your sectional/enroute chart wouldn't do almost the same thing....like we did in the [/I]old days.

Just to stir the pot a little here... I sincerely hope that when RVers are flying around in IMC, that you guys are doing so in weather that at least gives you a fighting chance at living! if you suddenly turn into a glider!

Iv'e done more than my share of flying point A to point B in a single engine airplane with no autopilot and routinely shooting an ILS to 200 and 1/2. I'm so glad I survived that phase of my career, and choose now to not ever have to do that again. ....at least not to plan on it anyway, and that's KEY!

Think about it! You're flying along in cruise in IMC ( or VMC on top, doesn't matter), and suddenly your engine injests a valve or two and comes to a complete stop!! ....Period!.....engines' done!....toast!.....not coming back! If the weather below you is at minimums or worse.....and you lose that engine for good.... my friends,....you....are.....screwed!!! end of story period!

That's all. Just a little food for thought. Ya'll be safe out there now, ya' here!

 

[Rainier Lamers]

Yes, without a question, you are right.
EFIS problems pale by comparison to the big fan stopping.

I don't think many clear thinking pilots will routinely fly IMC in a single engined aircraft - it would be just a matter of time until something goes badly wrong.

The modern EFIS like the old six pack can give you a good reference for the unexpected and unplanned for occasion where you have little choice.
With most "better" EFIS's you may have a better chance compared to the six pack as a good EFIS can give you a 3D terrain view - this can be more helpful in establishing situational and spacial awareness if the terrain view is suitably coupled to the horizon sensors and thus approximates what you would be seeing out of the window. This is particulary of value if you are not "sharp" with IMC/IFR and are normally flying VFR. It's much easier following the EFIS compared to traditional instruments. If the terrain view includes such things as 3D runways etc it gets even better - you can literly fly VFR approaches in IMC condition without the slightest brain gymnastics required - it's almost too easy.

It's stuff like this that really sets EFIS apart from anything else. Don't view an EFIS like this as merely a fancy replacement for the old dials - it's much, much more than that !
Even with the risk of an EFIS failing which, like anything else, is entirely a possibility - it is still unmatched in terms of usability and value for the buck compared to the rest of the items you are buying for your plane. It's a no-brainer really...

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

Wow...what an interesting thread! I'm surprised however that nobody has mentioned something else pretty basic!

Comparing the safety aspects of glass vs round dials and IMC flying and the like can suddenly take a back seat when the one single engine powering our RVs decides to go on holiday!

Perhaps this is where ones' situational awareness (SA) can help the most. Knowing at the push of a button ( ie. glass technology) where any quick diversion airport is located relative to your nose of the aircraft could make a big difference in the outcome of a engine out emergency. Not that tracking your progress on your sectional/enroute chart wouldn't do almost the same thing....like we did in the [/I]old days.

Just to stir the pot a little here... I sincerely hope that when RVers are flying around in IMC, that you guys are doing so in weather that at least gives you a fighting chance at living! if you suddenly turn into a glider!

Iv'e done more than my share of flying point A to point B in a single engine airplane with no autopilot and routinely shooting an ILS to 200 and 1/2. I'm so glad I survived that phase of my career, and choose now to not ever have to do that again. ....at least not to plan on it anyway, and that's KEY!

Think about it! You're flying along in cruise in IMC ( or VMC on top, doesn't matter), and suddenly your engine injests a valve or two and comes to a complete stop!! ....Period!.....engines' done!....toast!.....not coming back! If the weather below you is at minimums or worse.....and you lose that engine for good.... my friends,....you....are.....screwed!!! end of story period!

That's all. Just a little food for thought. Ya'll be safe out there now, ya' here!

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Sorry I have to disagree

It seems to me all the cross-checking you need to do in an experimental glass panel system sort of negates its usefulness. Do you trust it or don't you, and my point is that you ought to be able to trust it with your life. You shouldn't have to be crosschecking with another system - the system you are flying should be doing that for you.

Mixed points. First the need to cross check does not negate the usefulness of Glass. A 6-pak by its very nature demands cross checking. I'd have to ask you, have you flown with glass or IFR rated?

You mixed points in mid stream, automatic fault detection and usefulness. Yes large transports have 3 systems, being cross checked with other independent systems, plus two pilots. However mounting an airspeed, altimeter and attitude backup nearby the glass in your RV for IFR work, does not make glass useless. I'm sorry I've got to disagree again.

With a 6-pak you are one vac pump failure away from Oh S$%# critical. Cheap electric gyros don't empress me either. The good ones start at well over $2,000 to $4,000. Glass and a few analog backups plus a T&B/TC doubles the capability and cross checks and is more reliable.

I remember the 6-pak when I first learned attitude instrument flying, and the panel on the first "airliner" I flew, a 19 seat Metroliner. Trust me I never want to go back. In fact after the Metro sat cold soaked on the ramp overnight, the electric attitude gyros would not fully erect for a half hour into the first leg. Mechanical instruments are not perfect, trust me.

Your premise is with out fault detection its not useful or safe. Really? Solid state reliability is a big plus. From an pilot standpoint, one presentation with flight, nav, weather, traffic and systems info is an obvious advantage. The "burden" of cross check is less than a classic 6-pak, even with nearby backups IMHO.

Some experimental glass does have some rudimentary internal cross checking and failure warning "flags". The Dynon's color display turns B&W if an internal error or limit is exceeded; It keeps trying to show you attitude in B&W, which may be OK, just possibly degraded. The display goes back to color automatically when the limit is no longer exceeded. All glass will only get better with time, not less.

A classic 6-pak analog, requires you must cross-check, because your instruments are shot gunned around the panel. Engine instruments are on the other side of the panel. You have no choice to scan, a lot.

On an airliner it has separate computers watching the glass and warning the pilots. You will never see this on non-transport planes because the FAR's don't require it. Experimental glass adds safety under normal conditions and MTBF is excellent. However they are not certified or immune from problems. Life has risk, but experimental glass is not one of the great risks in aviation. Single pilot IFR is far more hazardous.

OK, ok, we are talking about RVs flying most of the time in daylight VFR. The glass panels out there will do just fine, I am sure. Have fun and watch the pretty pictures. And the way most of the non-professional pilots are trained we would be expecting to be ready to switch over to a partial panel at any moment in IFR flight. So the need for super-reliability in the RV is not there quite as much as in the airliner. But if it's an instrument and you are looking at it for flight decision making it really (*really*) needs to be trustworthy standing all on it's own.

First NOTHING stands on its own, especially if you can avoid it. Airliners do have 2 or 3 separate "glass systems" working together, but they STILL have backup instruments and two pilots backing each other up. The single pilot is the real danger in IFR ops. You're confusing common sense and higher levels of redundancy with an indictment of glass reliability. Glass allows you to add more backup you don't get with a 6-pak alone. Yes the 6-pak divides it up into 6 instruments. That's a true point, but saying "glass is not perfect" so it's not safe is not honest or a good reason to deny all the other advantages, IMHO. No one thinks one instrument system is a good idea. Rent a mighty C-172 with a 6-pak, there's little redundancy w/ a Vac failure. Many have died on partial panel.

Almost every instrument student I had lost control of the plane in IMC (in the simulator) with a Vac failure. The back up? A single turn and bank (or coordinator). If you don't scan and CROSS CHECK you might die. Statistics have borne this out. So to criticize glass is fine, but look at the big picture. All the STC'ed glass for GA planes require a backup 3-pak: Attitude, Airspeed and Altitude. It's not an un-safe, thing, its an engineering, common sense and adding MORE redundancy because we now can. It's failure analysis and human factors. Airliners STILL have the backup 3-pak (which are now also glass!).

But you know who has to have had guts? Those F-111 or B-1 aircrews that have/had the terrain following defensive systems. Imagine how much they are trusting the system to function correctly without their intervention.

Bingo! We're very equipment dependant. All pilots, even the intrepid C-172 pilot shooting an ILS to mins with one vac pump and one crankshaft is a trusting dude. I've studied risk management, CRM - crew resource management. It gets to a point of philosophy, you've got to admit flying can kill you. Quote:

"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity, or neglect."

- Original author unknown, World War II advisory

What am I putting in my RV? A classy looking six pack and some sort of color GPS. If I had an extra $10,000 (and I don't!) I'd like to get a Garmin 430 and the ADS-B enabled transponder.

Cool you will be very happy and I safe. Going w/ electric gyro or vac?

Hope I am not rambling too much. For me there is the simple joyful hobby of flying a simple airplane and then there are the technical aspects of designing cutting edge avionics for airliners. Sometimes its hard for me to separate the two approaches to flying. RK

There's no need to justify you choice, but consider cost of your full TSO'ed analog/mechanical flt instruments. A TSO'ed airspeed is about $650, china knock off about $150. Once you add up all the instruments, you'll have about (guessing) ++$6k-$8k in a top line 6-pak analog flight instruments. You won't use cheap stuff, right. You can buy two Dynon's, with pitot/static instrument backup and T&B/coordinator for less. Add a nice wing leveler you have something that's safe & redundant, without spinning wheels & gears. Aerobatics & mechanical gyros, plus IFR don't mix IMHO. Cheap instruments are garbage and you will throw them away eventually.

You have a preference for the analog. I taught senior pilots many years ago transitioning to "glass". Some of them had over three decades of flying analog. After listening to a few nash their teeth about programing the FMC (Flt Management Computer), I'd see them months later, they all said, "George I love this glass". Fokker 100 pilots said with joy they had the "Fokker stare", meaning information on their prime display was awesome. Years ago when Southwest ordered new glass B737's, they ordered them with glass emulation of old analog gauges, plus they disabled all advance features like VNAV and Auto throttles. Years later they changed their mind and now turned on the "magic" for all their newer B737's. UPS changed all their old DC-8 and B727 to glass. It's less maintenance and more reliable. Analog/mechanical is not dead yet, but Glass is better.

 

[Rainier Lamers]

Lemmy see...

I'm going to just add up a few numbers. Just for the sake of showing off a bit. I'm basing this *naturaly* on our MGL instruments as I am not in a position to quote other EFIS manufacturers.

OK, the question is standard instruments vs EFIS.

A full house Enigma with engine monitoring, attitude, moving map navigation, terrain awareness, all the primary flight instruments including AOA, 3D terrain and 3D runways, airspace awareness and countless other things (much too long a list to print here) will set you back around $3400 in the U.S. right ? Add another $1900 or so and you will have a full MFD dual panel system with full redundancy right down to duplicate GPS receivers and the panels work together.

Right. Thats about $5300 odd give or take a few bob here or there.

Now, what does that buy us in a traditional sense once we have taken off a bit for a nice aviation GPS ?

I don't have to answer that I think. It's too obvious.

EFIS has completely revolutionised the airline industry. Now its time for the rest of us.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

 

[Ralph Kramden]

George...

George -

1) When I post on VAF it is usually at the end of the day and after I have had a few beers. So you can't expect me to be firing on all cylinders. This morning, of course I am waking up out of that haze from last night.

2) I reserve the right to think outside of the box. I am an engineer and was such before I became a pilot. So I don't look at things quite the same way as pilots do, or the same way as the established avionics community does.

3) I am very well familiar with FMSs; I have one sitting on my desk and I work on the latest 787 operating system. The reliability I see in my work is what I would prefer to see in RVs. I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility to transfer a lot of the airliner level reliability to the GA world - it seems more of the challenge of changing a mindset rather than dollars.

4) I am a low time VFR pilot and don't operate at your level of experience. Which means I will have different values as to what is important to me in terms of avionics capabilities and I will see things differently from you. I agree the single pilot IFR situation sounds risky - I would not want to do it unless I had a system that I could trust with my life. Since I don't think there is a system out there that I can trust my life to, I don't think I am eager to try it at all - except possibly for being able to penetrate cloud layers separating regions of VFR weather.

5) I have extensive experience developing flight displays - and I hated them before I was a pilot and I still dislike them. I hated having to stare at this tiny little postage stamp that had all this information crytically encoded upon it. Somehow, the old analog instruments were just easier for me to read and understand. And airliner EFISs leave an awful lot to be desired, and don't get me started about the archaic MCDUs.

Are glass panels safe? I don't know, probably, but I sure wish they were a few more steps along, technology-wise.

--Ralph

 

[N395V]

I don't think many clear thinking pilots will routinely fly IMC in a single engined aircraft - it would be just a matter of time until something goes badly wrong.

I would tend to disagree. While I no longer fly IFR I used to do so routinely in both single and multi engine. Statistics have shown engine loss in a multi engine aircraft more routinely resuls in loss of life than single engine.

If you plan your flight well and have VMC to drop into when your engine fails the outcome should be no different than if you were in vmc in the 1st place.

With most "better" EFIS's you may have a better chance compared to the six pack as a good EFIS can give you a 3D terrain view - this can be more helpful in establishing situational and spacial awareness if the terrain view is suitably coupled to the horizon sensors and thus approximates what you would be seeing out of the window.

It is my opinion that terrain view and synthetic vision on these instruments is a huge waste of processor time. Sure it will help you fly between mountain peaks but I find it distracting to view and in the event of engine failure it is not going to tell you anything about fences, power lines, signposts, trees, houses, cars, ruts, gullies, rocks, etc.

To purchase an EFIS with this in mind would indeed be foolhardy.

 

[N395V]

Cheap electric gyros don't empress me either. The good ones start at well over $2,000 to $4,000.

Boy howdy.

I went cheap for my backup electric horizon. It went TU before 2 hrs of flight time. Should have bought a good one. Got what I paid for.

Talked to a lot of people at the RC Allen booth at SNF with the same experience.

I think I'll replace it with a TruTRak while not ea true gyro they seem highly reliable. Plus it will fit in the same hole.

 

[David-aviator]

George and Ralph

George -

Are glass panels safe? I don't know, probably, but I sure wish they were a few more steps along, technology-wise.

--Ralph

(assume you mean RV glass....)

It is interesting reading the thoughts of guys who were behind the development of airline EFIS and the operation of it.

I have some experience on the 767 and quite a bit on the later MD80's which had (have) a Walmart version of Boeing's IRS based system.

As George comments, most guys made the transition from analog but not everyone. I know of some who simply bid out of glass and flew the old stuff until they could retire. They were very good pilots but did not like all the magic of EFIS.

No one seems to have anticipated what would happen to pilot skill after six months of EFIS and total auto flight control. Our company policy was to engage the AP after take off and leave it on until landing - supposedly it saved fuel. But at the first six month check, some guys had great difficulty hand flying an engine out approach. Also, coming into LA and having a runway change at 1000' proved to be an impossible reprogramming task for some guys not totally spun up on doing it. There were more an few missed approaches in the beginning until common sense prevailed and systems were simply disconnected and the airplane hand flown to the new runway assignment.

I agree with George that basically this stuff is good and in my opinion very safe, at least at the 767 level and later. The accident rate of these airplanes is incredibly low.

The question here is glass in an RV. The safety level can not match airline operations, it is economically and physically impossible. Yes, a good GPS will keep many guys out of trouble by knowing where to go if there is trouble, but to load up an RV with tons of expensive glass is nice to look at but it will not make the operation safer. The eternal weak link in this operation is the single crank shaft and the parts connected to it and supporting it. All the glass in the world will never change that basic fact.