3 ms·

This is a case where a little knowledge makes everything look like a conspiracy. Sadly none of what you wrote is even remotely true. Glass cockpit upgrades are

This is a case where a little knowledge makes everything look like a conspiracy. Sadly none of what you wrote is even remotely true. Glass cockpit upgrades are very popular. For example, an Evolution E5 is $5k to $10k depending on the model. You can remove your vacuum system at that point. There's nothing stopping anyone from upgrading, aside from the cost. There's no conspiracy here, no evil FAA paperwork or regulations standing in your way. I have no idea where you got the impression that the FAA tolerates faking paperwork. The FAA even has a page showing off some of their enforcement actions https://www.oig.dot.gov/agency/federal-aviation-administration https://www.oig.dot.gov/agency/federal-aviation-administrati... Check out https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/37661 https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/37661 That's literally what you are describing, the mechanic said they did something according to the manual, but didn't. So no. The FAA isn't trying to keep GA down.

wolrah 5y ago
> Glass cockpit upgrades are very popular. For example, an Evolution E5 is $5k to $10k depending on the model. You can remove your vacuum system at that point. There's nothing stopping anyone from upgrading, aside from the cost. To me the cost is the obvious point of complaint. Now I'm not an aircraft tech, but I'm looking through the manual for the E5 and as far as I can tell the $5000 base configuration gets you the main unit itself as well as an exterior sensor module. The main module of course houses the display, CPU, and battery as well as the IMU and pneumatic sensors for pitot/static and some serial ports for connection to other electronics. The remote module houses a non-certified GPS (connection to an IFR-certified navigation system is required for installation in IFR-capable aircraft), a compass, and a temperature sensor. None of that is high-tech equipment, nor is the software required to turn those sensor inputs in to useful displays particularly complicated. I don't see any obvious reason a group of motivated electronics hobbyists couldn't build a proof-of-concept that performs all the same core functions over a long weekend with a few hundred bucks worth of off the shelf parts and access to the relevant details of the ARINC 429 standard. Obviously there are reliability and redundancy aspects to consider, but even the E5 is only officially allowed to replace one of two instruments and everything else must remain in its original position. Reliable IMUs and redundant microcontrollers aren't the cheapest things out there but they don't make up an order of magnitude price difference either. The regulations are there for a reason at their core, but there has to be some kind of balance where we don't have extra zeroes appearing in price tags just because something goes on a plane.
- light_hue_1 5y ago
  > None of that is high-tech equipment Of course! No one wants high-tech equipment in aviation. > the software required to turn those sensor inputs in to useful displays particularly complicated Relative to what though? This software has to always work. 100% of the time. If it ever goes wrong you might die. Software developers who are used to shipping normal code aren't used to the testing and rigor required in the aircraft industry. > I don't see any obvious reason a group of motivated electronics hobbyists couldn't build a proof-of-concept that performs all the same core functions over a long weekend with a few hundred bucks worth of off the shelf parts and access to the relevant details of the ARINC 429 standard. For sure. And hobbyists can also make experimental engines and aircraft. There's a whole category for those. But most people would not trust their lives to them. I wouldn't. There are too many edge cases, too many one out of a billion coincidences that will kill you in aviation. Also, remember that they're not going to sell a lot of these E5s. These aren't phones. The entire GA fleet in the US is 200k aircraft. So they're going sell what, 20k of these over a decade worldwide? The low volume and the fact that you need to recoup your costs in a year or two at most, means that prices need to be very high.

wolrah 5y ago

> Glass cockpit upgrades are very popular. For example, an Evolution E5 is $5k to $10k depending on the model. You can remove your vacuum system at that point. There's nothing stopping anyone from upgrading, aside from the cost. To me the cost is the obvious point of complaint. Now I'm not an aircraft tech, but I'm looking through the manual for the E5 and as far as I can tell the $5000 base configuration gets you the main unit itself as well as an exterior sensor module. The main module of course houses the display, CPU, and battery as well as the IMU and pneumatic sensors for pitot/static and some serial ports for connection to other electronics. The remote module houses a non-certified GPS (connection to an IFR-certified navigation system is required for installation in IFR-capable aircraft), a compass, and a temperature sensor. None of that is high-tech equipment, nor is the software required to turn those sensor inputs in to useful displays particularly complicated. I don't see any obvious reason a group of motivated electronics hobbyists couldn't build a proof-of-concept that performs all the same core functions over a long weekend with a few hundred bucks worth of off the shelf parts and access to the relevant details of the ARINC 429 standard. Obviously there are reliability and redundancy aspects to consider, but even the E5 is only officially allowed to replace one of two instruments and everything else must remain in its original position. Reliable IMUs and redundant microcontrollers aren't the cheapest things out there but they don't make up an order of magnitude price difference either. The regulations are there for a reason at their core, but there has to be some kind of balance where we don't have extra zeroes appearing in price tags just because something goes on a plane.

light_hue_1 5y ago
> None of that is high-tech equipment Of course! No one wants high-tech equipment in aviation. > the software required to turn those sensor inputs in to useful displays particularly complicated Relative to what though? This software has to always work. 100% of the time. If it ever goes wrong you might die. Software developers who are used to shipping normal code aren't used to the testing and rigor required in the aircraft industry. > I don't see any obvious reason a group of motivated electronics hobbyists couldn't build a proof-of-concept that performs all the same core functions over a long weekend with a few hundred bucks worth of off the shelf parts and access to the relevant details of the ARINC 429 standard. For sure. And hobbyists can also make experimental engines and aircraft. There's a whole category for those. But most people would not trust their lives to them. I wouldn't. There are too many edge cases, too many one out of a billion coincidences that will kill you in aviation. Also, remember that they're not going to sell a lot of these E5s. These aren't phones. The entire GA fleet in the US is 200k aircraft. So they're going sell what, 20k of these over a decade worldwide? The low volume and the fact that you need to recoup your costs in a year or two at most, means that prices need to be very high.