The Future of Glass Cockpits?

[flyersfan31]

I've read a lot lately about how nobody wants steam gauges in new aircraft. You can't get them in the 182. Cirrus and Columbia are glass. Piper's headed that way. It seems, at the moment, that glass will have better resale.

However, after flying the G1000 T182T yesterday, I got to thinking. Yeah, the new glass cockpits look awesome and modern, but how will they look in say 5-10yrs? Steam gauges have changed little over the years. Take a look at any cockpit still equipped with "state-of-the-art" avionics circa 1990, though, and those modern avionics look pretty pokey. I still remember the first LED watch I saw. Man was that awesome. I think most people would laugh at one now.

That, and probably none of them are supported by their mfrs, if the mfr is even still in business. That's a second issue. What if data formats, or card formats change? Remember the floppy? You know, the ones that really flopped? I'm afraid we, the consumers, are looking at a pretty nasty case of planned obsolescence, whereby we are forced to swap out boxes every 8-10yrs because the old ones aren't supported, or don't have the right data card, or somesuch. You can fly a 170B into the ground (well, until 8.33 spacing), but if you can't get the data into a G1000 you're screwed.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Those are definitely valid concerns. Another issue is how well the technology will hold up over the years. Will solid state gyros be IFR worthy after 20 years in service? What will the failure modes look like?

The case in favor of advanced electronics includes light weight, low power consumption, and increased capabilities. What I personally would like to see is the individual steam gauges replaced with electronics rather than banking everything on one or two giant screens. Sort of like a component stereo system rather than one do-it-all box.

 

[KennyFlys]

I believe they'll hold up well IF cared for well. As mentioned, there's the question of life expectancy on the accelerometers. Magnetometers should be fine. I've not seen one replaced on an S-3 Viking, only the boom it was mounted on. The displays may take some abuse, mostly in student environments.

The SD cards are small and take a lot of abuse. I don't see that changing any time soon. Besides, you pull them once a month so there's really no wear and tear. Software will change from time to time but that's expected.

I'm sure there were similar thoughts on the earlier, small glass systems... like the 430 or even prior?

 

[Ken Ibold]

I'm sure there were similar thoughts on the earlier, small glass systems... like the 430 or even prior?

Look how reliable the first generation of Sandel HSIs turned out to be ...

 

[Everskyward]

What will the failure modes look like?

1990s avionics? Failure modes? Funny I should be reading this right now. Here is an example from today. We decided to write this up as, "captain's RMI on LSD".

 

[tonycondon]

wow thats cool mari

 

[Ken Ibold]

1990s avionics? Failure modes? Funny I should be reading this right now. Here is an example from today. We decided to write this up as, "captain's RMI on LSD".

Oh no, the dreaded spirograph approach!!

 

[gprellwitz]

Well, the glass systems really are componentized, it's just the head units that are shared among the components. I suspect that, as with computers, we'll see various interface modules change, but with adapters that can be put in between. In the computer world, it would be the equivalent of adding a parallel to USB conversion. New units may have a period where they offer a choice of interfaces or multiple interfaces simultaneously.

Will it all be seamless? No. Cheap? Heck no! But it at least holds out the potential of being easier to upgrade than mechanical units. Not all potentials are realized of course.

Regarding weights, I have the sense that recent planes with glass are actually heavier than the same model without glass. Is this just my imagination? It does seem counter-intuitive.

 

[gkainz]

good thing you have photographic evidence of the failure, Mari, because, as an ex avionics tech, I would close out the maintenance action with "A-799. Captain's RMI detox'ed. Unable to duplicate."

 

[MauleSkinner]

The glass I flew today is 15 years old, and still works well, although occasionally one gets replaced (not cheap, but neither is steam replacement in a jet)...FMS's are updated with floppy disks, so we have to keep at least one computer with a floppy drive around. No support issues, though.

Regarding weights, I have the sense that recent planes with glass are actually heavier than the same model without glass. Is this just my imagination? It does seem counter-intuitive.

Is it the glass, or the other options that make it heavier? The same model airplane tends to get heavier with each year it comes off the assembly line, because we simply can't live without all the cool options.

Fly safe!

David

 

[Everskyward]

good thing you have photographic evidence of the failure, Mari, because, as an ex avionics tech, I would close out the maintenance action with "A-799. Captain's RMI detox'ed. Unable to duplicate."

Exactly the reason for the photographic evidence! Besides, I thought it was pretty cool too.

 

[flyersfan31]

The glass I flew today is 15 years old, and still works well, although occasionally one gets replaced (not cheap, but neither is steam replacement in a jet)...FMS's are updated with floppy disks, so we have to keep at least one computer with a floppy drive around. No support issues, though.

Yeah, but that's kind of my point. You have to keep a computer with a floppy drive around to keep it updated? That's TWO obsolete links in the chain. How long will you be able to get floppys?

15yrs is a good run, but let's say the cost of a replacement package (not the units, but the complete system itself) is about $75k (that's the cost for a new Chelton EFIS PFD only, no MFD, so a very conservative estimate, total with PFD/MFD installed is something like $125k). Will we have to budget for avionics overhaul like an engine overhaul? With those numbers, the avionics overhaul will be more important than TBO for the engine.

The military keeps stuff forever. In the commercial world, support for older versions is dropped within years, not decades. Ask any user of Quicken (or any owner of an Apollo 2001 NMS)

 

[KennyFlys]

The military keeps stuff forever. In the commercial world, support for older versions is dropped within years, not decades. Ask any user of Quicken (or any owner of an Apollo 2001 NMS)

The S-3A Viking used a Sperry Univac AYK-10 General Purpose Digital Computer. Although it operated most weapons systems in the plane, I'm certain a Commodore 64 had more capability. Beginning in the mid-90s the S-3B was refitted with the AYK-23 Data Processing Set by Lockheed. It was finally completed around 2002 I don't know much about it but what little I have gleaned, I think it's on par with Windows v3.1.

The Viking within a few years of being fully decommissioned.

 

[TMetzinger]

As previously noted, there's been a fair amount of thought put into the data wiring (essentially ethernet) and protocols used by the G1000 and other integrated systems, and they are HEAVILY modularized. That is why it's not going to be a huge PITA when Cessna owners take their early G1000 airplanes back to get the GFC700 installed.

I expect that things like digital radios, ADS-B, and other upgrades will be accomplished by adding/replacing modules and upgrading firmware, and as display technology improves a display swap will be possible too.

I've seen similar effects in the pro audio world.. What used to be a huge amount of analog electronics making up a mixing board is now four modules - a control surface (modularized), an analog/digital input/output module, a bay of processing modules (each hot swappable), and storage.

 

[gprellwitz]

gprellwitz[/B]
Regarding weights, I have the sense that recent planes with glass are actually heavier than the same model without glass. Is this just my imagination? It does seem counter-intuitive.

Is it the glass, or the other options that make it heavier? The same model airplane tends to get heavier with each year it comes off the assembly line, because we simply can't live without all the cool options.

Fly safe!

David

Certainly a valid question, but I seem to remember at least one case where it wa the same model with the steam as opposed to glass, and the glass was heavier. But no, I don't remember the specifics.

 

[JohnR]

In the future, only the ultra rich will be able to afford Type Certificated airplanes, anyway. AOPA will wrangle an exemption to User Fees for Light Sport Aircraft, and there will be only four pilot certificates: Sport Pilot, Commercial Pilot, CFI, and ATP. Commercial will automatically include an Instrument Rating.

You'll have to have a Commercial Certificate to operate a Type Certificated aircraft. These will all have glass cockpits, while LSAs will have steam gauges. I know some LSAs have glass now, but that will change.

There will be a blanket AD permanently grounding all Type Certificated aircraft manufactured prior to 1996, the year the Statute of Repose was passed. This will be in response to some hysterical legal action that won't make any sense, but that's just too bad.

That's what's in my crystal ball.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Certainly a valid question, but I seem to remember at least one case where it wa the same model with the steam as opposed to glass, and the glass was heavier. But no, I don't remember the specifics.

Avidyne's Alliant glass panel retrofit of a King Air 200 takes 150 pounds out of the airplane.

 

[TMetzinger]

the G1000 system in a C182 with the King Autopilot added some weight because there's a turn coordinator and additional interfacing boxes in use. When the GFC700 is installed the TC and extra boxes go away and you end up with more useful load than with a steam 182 - and of course you get the XM and other stuff on an MFD that you don't get in the steam 182 without adding weight.

Generally, for the same capabilities, the integrated glass is less weight than the separate GPS/MFD/Transponder/DME/RMI/Datalink.

 

[SCCutler]

1990s avionics? Failure modes? Funny I should be reading this right now. Here is an example from today. We decided to write this up as, "captain's RMI on LSD".

Blanking signal not setting. Easy fix (if I had a schematic and a scope...).

 

[gprellwitz]

the G1000 system in a C182 with the King Autopilot added some weight because there's a turn coordinator and additional interfacing boxes in use. When the GFC700 is installed the TC and extra boxes go away and you end up with more useful load than with a steam 182 - and of course you get the XM and other stuff on an MFD that you don't get in the steam 182 without adding weight.

Generally, for the same capabilities, the integrated glass is less weight than the separate GPS/MFD/Transponder/DME/RMI/Datalink.

It's likely the Cessna that I was thinking of, and I'm sure it was before they used the GFC700. Thanks for the specifics and the explanation. Ken, too!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That, and probably none of them are supported by their mfrs, if the mfr is even still in business. That's a second issue. What if data formats, or card formats change? Remember the floppy? You know, the ones that really flopped? I'm afraid we, the consumers, are looking at a pretty nasty case of planned obsolescence, whereby we are forced to swap out boxes every 8-10yrs because the old ones aren't supported, or don't have the right data card, or somesuch. You can fly a 170B into the ground (well, until 8.33 spacing), but if you can't get the data into a G1000 you're screwed.

I think the G1000 is popular enough that it'll be well-supported for many years to come. The G430 has been out for quite a while now and support for it (as well as demand for it) is as good as ever. I think that over time, the G1000 will evolve as a system and have upgrades much like the 430W.

I predict the demise of Avidyne, however.

 

[KennyFlys]

I predict the demise of Avidyne, however.

Unless they come around with better competition to Garmin, I suspect you're right. I've heard demand for Avidyne is extremely low where both are options.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Unless they come around with better competition to Garmin, I suspect you're right. I've heard demand for Avidyne is extremely low where both are options.

Diamond and Columbia are the only two that offer both, IIRC. I was looking for some fodder to use in my interview with Alan Klapmeier at OSH last year, especially after Garmin showed their G600 retrofit package mounted in a Cirrus.

So, I went to talk to the folks at Diamond because I'd heard the same thing (customers choose Garmin when given the option). Diamond said they had built ONE airplane with Avidyne.

Now, Piper (one of only two companies that was exclusively Avidyne) is beginning to offer a Garmin option on the PA32's, and Avidyne is madly copying everything Garmin did last year. (retrofit on a King Air, a system for experimentals... Where have I seen this before? Hmmm....) It may take a while, especially with Cirrus keeping them alive, but if Cirrus offers an option, Avidyne's gonna go into a death spiral.