3 ms·

I'd be fine with that if it meant that the avionics software was cheaper because it cost less to develop. Your average private pilot in North America is never

I'd be fine with that if it meant that the avionics software was cheaper because it cost less to develop. Your average private pilot in North America is never going to need their avionics to be able to deal with this, just like they don't need the GPS in their car to be able to deal with it either.

defrost 14y ago
Don't be lazy, just consider the case of crossing a discontinuity and deal with it correctly, if you're on a roll developing it doesn't increase the cost and it offsets liability later. The standards for avionics software are not geared towards average use in any case. They are geared towards worst case scenarios that have actually happened and could actually happen, even if the odds are low. Are you honestly claiming that a popular bit of avionics kit will never find it's way to the region of Fiji? Ever?
- Wingman4l7 14y ago
  What about compass anomalies when flying around the poles? What about flying at extreme altitudes? If we're talking about avionics for Boeing passenger jets, that's one thing -- but those aren't going to be the same avionics that go into a Cessna 172 or a glider. That's why differing standards exist. And no, I'm not claiming that -- that's what the giant sticker is for. If you're concerned about that sort of thing, make your hardware open and people can put on whatever custom firmware they like.
  - defrost 14y ago
    When flying, navigating or surveying in polar regions it pays to have control (or an understanding) over the translation from raw sat packets to polar suitable coordinates, when flying at extreme altitudes it pays to have the same as numerous commercial GPS units have altitude and/or speed cutouts. I'm certainly not talking avionics for commercial passenger craft, I'm talking about the avionics for routine global scientific measurements, geophysics, weather balloons, cheap drones, etc - all of these are application areas where roll your own avionics that aren't written by North American bound myopics are applicable.

defrost 14y ago

Don't be lazy, just consider the case of crossing a discontinuity and deal with it correctly, if you're on a roll developing it doesn't increase the cost and it offsets liability later. The standards for avionics software are not geared towards average use in any case. They are geared towards worst case scenarios that have actually happened and could actually happen, even if the odds are low. Are you honestly claiming that a popular bit of avionics kit will never find it's way to the region of Fiji? Ever?

Wingman4l7 14y ago
What about compass anomalies when flying around the poles? What about flying at extreme altitudes? If we're talking about avionics for Boeing passenger jets, that's one thing -- but those aren't going to be the same avionics that go into a Cessna 172 or a glider. That's why differing standards exist. And no, I'm not claiming that -- that's what the giant sticker is for. If you're concerned about that sort of thing, make your hardware open and people can put on whatever custom firmware they like.
- defrost 14y ago
  When flying, navigating or surveying in polar regions it pays to have control (or an understanding) over the translation from raw sat packets to polar suitable coordinates, when flying at extreme altitudes it pays to have the same as numerous commercial GPS units have altitude and/or speed cutouts. I'm certainly not talking avionics for commercial passenger craft, I'm talking about the avionics for routine global scientific measurements, geophysics, weather balloons, cheap drones, etc - all of these are application areas where roll your own avionics that aren't written by North American bound myopics are applicable.