Something AOPA and EAA Could Actually Do (Long)

[airdale]

One of the things that happens with new technology is that the early winners establish proprietary interfaces. Railroad track gauge is an 18th-century example. IBM's disk drive interface is a more recent one. Microsoft Office's ever-changing file formats are another.

The reason the leaders establish proprietary interfaces is that then, when a customer wants to add something, they are locked in. In my experience, this game goes on for a few years before the users finally force the vendors to standardize or, in the interesting case of the IBM drive interface, the government forces disclosure.

Until the interfaces are opened up, the vendors are able to command a price premium for their products because they have no competition.

When the game is finally over, independently managed specifications emerge. For example, the IEEE 802 ethernet specs.

NMEA was smart enough to standardize the GPS serial interface and look how many small and inexpensive GPSs we can choose from.

This game is presently being played in the EFB/GPS/ADS-B space. Garmin has designed Pilot so that users who want ADS-B must buy the GDL-39. Foreflight has designed their product so that anyone wanting ADS-B must buy the Stratus box. I am not sure where Aspen is going with their "Connected Panel" but it is also not a completely open specification.

EAA and AOPA may be able pre-empt or at least limit the life of these proprietary cockpit interfaces by creating and funding a standards development effort, possibly under the IEEE umbrella. There are certainly enough qualified electrical and computer engineers in the organizations to support such an effort. It might even be possible to attract GAMA and NBAA to participate in the project.

I would guess it to be a 1-2 year effort, depending on how much sand the incumbents throw into the gears of progress. (Yes, this is a routine part of standards-writing.)

If the standardization is successful, competition and innovation would flourish and costs would come down. This would not be an expensive undertaking compared to the benefits that would accrue to the community.

What do you think?

 

[Shepherd]

I like the idea.
Trying to fight the "money" is tough.
I spent 37 years in IBM Research. There is NO logical argument that will counter some executive who has a plan to squeeze blood out of a stone.

 

[X3 Skier]

Great idea but standard setting is usually a "too hard" when there are one or two MAJOR players in a field.

Cheers

 

[airdale]

I like the idea.

Thanks. FWIW I don't see it as a moral crusade of any sort. If I was a product manager or a strategic planner for a share leader I would be trying to keep my interfaces proprietary too. But I would also be planning for the day when my luck ran out and I would be making every effort to delay that day.

Great idea but standard setting is usually a "too hard" when there are one or two MAJOR players in a field.

Well, I think this market is already pretty fragmented, considering all of the various and proposed AHRS and ADS-B In boxes and the growing enthusiasm for interfacing portable electronics to the certified stack. All of these players should be supporters of standards, as will Hilton and probably some other software vendors.

In the certified world, we already see Avidyne offering 430/530 compatible boxes and we have various electronics vendors serving the experimental market with pretty nifty stuff. IMHO all of these guys would benefit from standards and are likely to jump on a bandwagon.

I'll bet you'd have north of ten companies in the room for a kickoff meeting.

But to your point, I have seen it done with two dominant players, Foxboro and Honeywell, in process control. The oil companies pushed heavily in the standards process and eventually forced adherence.

EAA and AOPA have the resources to bring standards into existence. From that point, it would be up to the market (us) to insist on them when purchasing products.