AirTalk.org Aviation discussions newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  Glass Cockpit, ages quicker ? Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next          AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Aviation (Students) View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Pre Schooler Guest Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:53 am    Post subject: Glass Cockpit, ages quicker ? I posted a question about the safety of old airplanes earlier and got a lot of insightful responses. Now here is another silly observation. The glass cockpit seems to have been promoted as the best thing that has ever happened to the small airplanes. They look nice, but they are, 1) Less reliable than any mechanical devices; 2) Hard to detect or recover from errors; 3) They deteriorite faster, and gets even more unreliable as they age; Item 1 is the most fatal flaw, not only because software and electronics inherantly adds significant complexities to the "reliability design", but also it made the electrical power more critical to flight safety. Can anyone imagine flying an airplane with a 30 year old "glass cockpit" ? Maybe the new airplane buyers who want to order the glass cockpits, should ask some software engineers who design "highly reliable, highly available" systems, whether those software engineers would entrust their own lives with their own code, IF there is a mechanical alternative. Maybe the new buyers should demand better looking and better made "traditional" cockpits. The computer software based tools should be put on the side, or around the most critical flight instruments. Instead of the other way around. If they ran out of things to put into the glass, put the radios, radars, CAMERAs etc on it; NOT the airspeed indicator, altimeter, attitude indicator, heading indicator, turn indicators. Back to top Jim Macklin Guest Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:16 am    Post subject: Re: Glass Cockpit, ages quicker ? The fact is that mechanical instruments, pneumatic pumps and other "old style" gauges are more likely to fail without warning and do not self-monitor. Are they perfect, nope. Did the maker pick the best design for the indicator on the screen, nope. Simulated round dials or tape displays that go up with bigger number seem to fit the human natural expectation. But if a piece of electronic hardware is working after a few hours of "burn-in" it is likely to work for many years. And as I said, electronics can self-monitor and report to the pilot that some maintenance is needed and also report to the shop, what work that is needed, making repair faster and more accurate. Electricity is very reliable, it is well understood by engineers and mechanics. Batteries and generators can be duplicated for redundancy, electrical systems can have multiple busses so a failure does not cause a total failure. -- James H. Macklin ATP,CFI,A&P -- Merry Christmas Have a Safe and Happy New Year Live Long and Prosper Jim Macklin "Pre Schooler" <mistersky (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote Quote: I posted a question about the safety of old airplanes earlier and got a lot of insightful responses. Now here is another silly observation. The glass cockpit seems to have been promoted as the best thing that has ever happened to the small airplanes. They look nice, but they are, 1) Less reliable than any mechanical devices; 2) Hard to detect or recover from errors; 3) They deteriorite faster, and gets even more unreliable as they age; Item 1 is the most fatal flaw, not only because software and electronics inherantly adds significant complexities to the "reliability design", but also it made the electrical power more critical to flight safety. Can anyone imagine flying an airplane with a 30 year old "glass cockpit" ? Maybe the new airplane buyers who want to order the glass cockpits, should ask some software engineers who design "highly reliable, highly available" systems, whether those software engineers would entrust their own lives with their own code, IF there is a mechanical alternative. Maybe the new buyers should demand better looking and better made "traditional" cockpits. The computer software based tools should be put on the side, or around the most critical flight instruments. Instead of the other way around. If they ran out of things to put into the glass, put the radios, radars, CAMERAs etc on it; NOT the airspeed indicator, altimeter, attitude indicator, heading indicator, turn indicators. Back to top SR20GOER Guest Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:21 am    Post subject: Re: Glass Cockpit, ages quicker ? "Pre Schooler" <mistersky (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote Quote: I posted a question about the safety of old airplanes earlier and got a lot of insightful responses. Now here is another silly observation. The glass cockpit seems to have been promoted as the best thing that has ever happened to the small airplanes. They look nice, but they are, 1) Less reliable than any mechanical devices; 2) Hard to detect or recover from errors; 3) They deteriorite faster, and gets even more unreliable as they age; Item 1 is the most fatal flaw, not only because software and electronics inherantly adds significant complexities to the "reliability design", but also it made the electrical power more critical to flight safety. Can anyone imagine flying an airplane with a 30 year old "glass cockpit" ? Maybe the new airplane buyers who want to order the glass cockpits, should ask some software engineers who design "highly reliable, highly available" systems, whether those software engineers would entrust their own lives with their own code, IF there is a mechanical alternative. Maybe the new buyers should demand better looking and better made "traditional" cockpits. The computer software based tools should be put on the side, or around the most critical flight instruments. Instead of the other way around. If they ran out of things to put into the glass, put the radios, radars, CAMERAs etc on it; NOT the airspeed indicator, altimeter, attitude indicator, heading indicator, turn indicators. As a glass cockpit pilot and an analogue one (Cirrus and Airvan), and a mechanic, and a ham radio operator (this is not a job application) I'll make several observations. Computers have passed their early developmental problems. I have more faith in some computers than their analogue equivalents. Ditto reliability long term. The glass cockpit is still backed up with analogue gear. On the error side, a properly trained pilot can detect errors quicker by the design of the screen and the ability of the glass cockpit to report error. The Cirrus shows some predictive alerts if you do something that is likely fatal, the engine management is far superior to any analogue dials, etc. The emphasis is on proper training and also cultural change. I know we are talking about megabucks difference but fighter pilots have glass cockpits because no human can react at the rate and process capability needed. Brian Back to top Jim Logajan Guest Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:32 am    Post subject: Re: Glass Cockpit, ages quicker ? "Pre Schooler" <mistersky (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: The glass cockpit seems to have been promoted as the best thing that has ever happened to the small airplanes. They look nice, but they are, 1) Less reliable than any mechanical devices; If you oil the transistors and replace the moving parts every six months, solid state equipment can last dozens of days. Quote: 2) Hard to detect or recover from errors; Detection is easy - the display blanks to a blue screen. Recovery is just as easy - depress control-alt-delete keys. Quote: 3) They deteriorite faster, and gets even more unreliable as they age; You're confusing the pilot with the equipment. Back to top giorgi.piero@gmail.com Guest Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Glass Cockpit, ages quicker ? Quote: Electricity is very reliable, it is well understood by engineers and mechanics. Batteries and generators can be duplicated for redundancy, electrical systems can have multiple busses so a failure does not cause a total failure. that is, if the cockpit is NOT working with MS Windows. Piero Back to top websurf1@cox.net Guest Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Glass Cockpit, ages quicker ? Please, oh PLEASE tell me that microslop isn't behind the glass cockpit. ("Blue screen of death" and control-alt-delete are microslop characteristics.) I don't want to be in the soup when, in the middle of my instruments, I see "Updates are available". On final, I don't want to hear "ring a bling" and see "you have mail" I don't want a browser intermingled with my altitude. I don't want to have to be a "microslop certified cockpit engineer". MSNBC is bad enough. MSFAA?? OK, all this was with a grin. Half a grin, anyway... Back to top ET Guest Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Glass Cockpit, ages quicker ? [email]websurf1 (AT) cox (DOT) net[/email] wrote in news:1135183162.800669.220350 (AT) g44g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com: Quote: Please, oh PLEASE tell me that microslop isn't behind the glass cockpit. ("Blue screen of death" and control-alt-delete are microslop characteristics.) I don't want to be in the soup when, in the middle of my instruments, I see "Updates are available". On final, I don't want to hear "ring a bling" and see "you have mail" I don't want a browser intermingled with my altitude. I don't want to have to be a "microslop certified cockpit engineer". MSNBC is bad enough. MSFAA?? OK, all this was with a grin. Half a grin, anyway... <Heh>.... Actually, even MS windows is very stable if all you ask of it is to run one application, keep it away from the internet and "automatic updates" and dont install hundreds of programs on it..... I would have confidence in, say a laptop, with no other software on it running windows and a flight monitoring program. If it doesnt crash (the computer I mean <grin> after 10 hours use or so, it's very reliably going to keep going, assuming we dont futz with it.... -- -- ET >:-) "A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."---- Douglas Adams Back to top Jim Macklin Guest Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Glass Cockpit, ages quicker ? They don't use Windows and they are not yet targets for spammers. <giorgi.piero (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote Quote: Electricity is very reliable, it is well understood by engineers and mechanics. Batteries and generators can be duplicated for redundancy, electrical systems can have multiple busses so a failure does not cause a total failure. that is, if the cockpit is NOT working with MS Windows. Piero Back to top grubertm Guest Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Glass Cockpit, ages quicker ? Not to worry, glass cockpits will be Linux-based. On-screen explanations will be reduced to a bright red "RTFM!". The software will still crash, but there will be a serial port conveniently located firewall forward where you can then hook up your diagnostic terminal as you glide to an emergency landing site. Happy flying! - Marco Back to top Icebound Guest Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Glass Cockpit, ages quicker ? "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote Quote: The fact is that mechanical instruments, pneumatic pumps and other "old style" gauges are more likely to fail without warning and do not self-monitor. ...snip... But if a piece of electronic hardware is working after a few hours of "burn-in" it is likely to work for many years. "many years" has a different definition for electronic vs. mechanical systems. It has been pointed out in this thread that it is unlikely that today's glass cockpit will still be in the plane 30 years from now. I venture to say that it will probably not be in the plane 10 or 15 years from now. I am not sure what the maintenance-requirement details for these things are going to be, but I am going to speculate that manufacturers (if not the FAA) will demand that you upgrade components frequently. They are not likely to maintain 15-year-old chips, displays, or firmware, just so you can exactly replace a defective component 15 years from now. So I will speculate that the long-term real-costs will be substantial. And, as you have pointed out, electronic hardware usually fails in the first few hours, or very very late in its life. Thus having periodic "maintenance" or upgrades is not necessarily increasing safety... the failure rate will actually go up because of the new components. Then also, whereas an old mechanical component will often give some warning or visible sign of its impending death.... an old electronic device will usually die suddenly. So the questions become... will I be allowed to install one of these and keep it for 15 or even 30 years without modification, maintenance or upgrade? Unlikely. So how much is it going to cost me to do the required upgrades? Does anyone know? Will I have to replace the whole thing every 5 or 8 years, just like my home computer, at 30-grand a crack? Maybe it would be cheaper to lease and replace every three years, just like a car? Cheaper, maybe but still not cheap. Back to top Brien K. Meehan Guest Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:59 pm    Post subject: Re: Glass Cockpit, ages quicker ? I can hardly wait for Linux-based GPS's. All you have to do is tell it your engine's BHP, your gross weight in grams, and how many revolutions the propeller will make on the trip, and it'll tell you what airport you'll be at when you're done. Back to top websurf1@cox.net Guest Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:42 am    Post subject: Re: Glass Cockpit, ages quicker ? Once I have some extra money (sigh...) I'm looking forward to some glass cockpit time. (Heck, I wouldn't mind NO cockpit, as long as it has wings and flies!) But Icebound brought up some interesting comments about the updates and such. Some of our current aircraft have instruments maybe a couple decades old. I'm not sure how long the glass stuff will last because of the software. Steam gauges didn't need periodic updates--just 8 clams for the map. All that glass is awful expensive. And the Linux based cockpit would use the metric equivalent of furlongs per fortnight for a time base..... I could go to Fry's Electronics and buy a microslop windows based mouse to replace the yoke... Back to top Robert Barker Guest Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:38 am    Post subject: Re: Glass Cockpit, ages quicker ? "Icebound" <ice_bound (AT) rogers (DOT) !!!EXTRACT!!!.com> wrote Quote: "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message news:Jr6qf.29813$QW2.11667 (AT) dukeread08 (DOT) .. The fact is that mechanical instruments, pneumatic pumps and other "old style" gauges are more likely to fail without warning and do not self-monitor. ...snip... But if a piece of electronic hardware is working after a few hours of "burn-in" it is likely to work for many years. "many years" has a different definition for electronic vs. mechanical systems. It has been pointed out in this thread that it is unlikely that today's glass cockpit will still be in the plane 30 years from now. I venture to say that it will probably not be in the plane 10 or 15 years from now. I am not sure what the maintenance-requirement details for these things are going to be, but I am going to speculate that manufacturers (if not the FAA) will demand that you upgrade components frequently. They are not likely to maintain 15-year-old chips, displays, or firmware, just so you can exactly replace a defective component 15 years from now. So I will speculate that the long-term real-costs will be substantial. snip I don't see why the FAA would make that demand. The Shuttle is still flying with electronics from the 80's... Back to top Bob Noel Guest Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:10 am    Post subject: Re: Glass Cockpit, ages quicker ? In article <docl4m$1jv$1 (AT) domitilla (DOT) aioe.org>, "Icebound" <ice_bound (AT) rogers (DOT) !!!EXTRACT!!!.com> wrote: Quote: It has been pointed out in this thread that it is unlikely that today's glass cockpit will still be in the plane 30 years from now. I venture to say that it will probably not be in the plane 10 or 15 years from now. What's different about the glass cockpit software/hardware and the software/hardware in other avionics? You don't think aircraft today have avionics software/hardware that is more than 15 years old? Quote: I am not sure what the maintenance-requirement details for these things are going to be, but I am going to speculate that manufacturers (if not the FAA) will demand that you upgrade components frequently. They won't, they can't make that demand. However, if the thing breaks, you won't be able to replace that old out-of-date processor board, but you won't be required to change a thing just because something new is out there. Quote: They are not likely to maintain 15-year-old chips, displays, or firmware, just so you can exactly replace a defective component 15 years from now. true. Quote: So I will speculate that the long-term real-costs will be substantial. why? Quote: So the questions become... will I be allowed to install one of these and keep it for 15 or even 30 years without modification, maintenance or upgrade? yes. As long as it keeps working. Quote: Unlikely. So how much is it going to cost me to do the required upgrades? Does anyone know? Again, what "required upgrades"? Unless there is an AD on the avionics, it will remain airworthy. Quote: Will I have to replace the whole thing every 5 or 8 years, just like my home computer, at 30-grand a crack? no. If it doesn't break, why would you replace it? Did your home computer break? wasn't it that you "upgraded" in order to gain capability? Quote: Cheaper, maybe but still not cheap. nothing in aviation is cheap (except owners). -- Bob Noel New NHL? what a joke Back to top giorgi.piero@gmail.com Guest Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:49 am    Post subject: Re: Glass Cockpit, ages quicker ? Quote: They don't use Windows and they are not yet targets for spammers I know... Just kidding. I don't use windows in my computer, imagine if I would use it in a cockpit!!! I can very well imagine a nice "Bluescreen" with the memory dump in an IFR flight, with the ironclad disclaimer from MS "No responsibility for anything"... and you're on your own, Totter! At 7000 ft, over the nicest layer of clouds... and it's 23:59 local time. "Insert IFR CR #2 and click OK to continue" :-))) Piero Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Aviation (Students) All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next Page 1 of 3   Jump to: Select a forum Aviation----------------alt.aviationAviation safety EnhancementPlanes, gliders and flying in AustraliaAviation et pilotage (Français)rec.aviationAviation (Aerobatics)Hot air, gas balloons and airshipsHang-gliding, paragliding, foot-launched flightAircraft Design & BuildingInstrument Flight RulesAviation (Classifieds)Military AircraftNaval AviationAviation (Miscellaneous Topics)Owning AirplanesAviators (General Discussions)Aviation related productsAircraft RestorationHelicopters and rotary wing aircraftsFlight SimulationSailplanesAviation (Students)Light aircraftFlying related activities in the UK Airports----------------alt.airportsEdinburgh Airport Glasgow Airport Humberside Airport Luton Airport Aberdeen Airport Glasgow Prestwick Airport  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.