4 ms·

Granted, the things that touchscreens replace in avionics are the stuff that you need your eyes on to operate in any case (navigation computer etc). And they of

by gnaffle 13y ago

Granted, the things that touchscreens replace in avionics are the stuff that you need your eyes on to operate in any case (navigation computer etc). And they often replace input systems that were far, far worse (read http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/garmin-gps http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/garmin-gps for a funny review of the old Garmin avionics). And in the air, you have a little more time to look at the instruments without risking crashing into a meeting car or driving off the road. I suspect (hope) that the current trend with touchscreens in cars will be a fad, and that manufacturers will realize that some features (climate control etc) are best implemented with traditional controls. It's sad when my 10 year old car has a UI on that part that allows me to use it without taking the eyes off the road.

renata 13y ago
Having previously worked in avionics I'm a little annoyed that many of the things he complains about are a combination of overstrict FAA rules and the immense cost required for certification for some of the functionality he wants. For instance, you can't warn for terrain unless you're level A certified on almost all airframes - and there's a differences between TAWS A, which lets you warn with "Terrain - Pull Up" and TAWS B, where you can only warn with "Terrain". Approach plates require level B certification as well, although for some reason the FAA lets some people get away with releasing them for iPads with no certification whatsoever (they generally have a disclaimer about "not for navigation purposes" but the FAA used to frown upon that sort of thing). There was a collision on a runway a while ago that we passed around the news article for, because it could have very easily been prevented by features we had, but were not certified for the airframes that had the collision. It's understandable that we want to ensure that the new glass works just as well as old instruments, but it's frustrating when customers very clearly want functionality that we're not allowed to provide.
- gnaffle 13y ago
  That's interesting. Not sure if it's a "jurisdiction" thing, as in if it's a part of the airplane, they go into the certification regime? For instance, laptop PCs running Windows and iPads are certified for EFB use now (I would assume for approach plates as well), but I'm not sure what the limitations are, or what certification level that is. Btw, what did you work on in avionics, and what made you move to a different area of work?
- lutorm 13y ago
  This is why experimental airplanes often have far superior avionics these days: you can put anything you want in one, without any certification. The result is cheaper and better alternatives. I believe there are efforts underway to change the rules to avoid this "making the perfect the enemy of the good" effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Airplane_Revitalization_Act_of_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Airplane_Revitalization_A...

by gnaffle 13y ago

renata 13y ago

Having previously worked in avionics I'm a little annoyed that many of the things he complains about are a combination of overstrict FAA rules and the immense cost required for certification for some of the functionality he wants. For instance, you can't warn for terrain unless you're level A certified on almost all airframes - and there's a differences between TAWS A, which lets you warn with "Terrain - Pull Up" and TAWS B, where you can only warn with "Terrain". Approach plates require level B certification as well, although for some reason the FAA lets some people get away with releasing them for iPads with no certification whatsoever (they generally have a disclaimer about "not for navigation purposes" but the FAA used to frown upon that sort of thing). There was a collision on a runway a while ago that we passed around the news article for, because it could have very easily been prevented by features we had, but were not certified for the airframes that had the collision. It's understandable that we want to ensure that the new glass works just as well as old instruments, but it's frustrating when customers very clearly want functionality that we're not allowed to provide.

gnaffle 13y ago
That's interesting. Not sure if it's a "jurisdiction" thing, as in if it's a part of the airplane, they go into the certification regime? For instance, laptop PCs running Windows and iPads are certified for EFB use now (I would assume for approach plates as well), but I'm not sure what the limitations are, or what certification level that is. Btw, what did you work on in avionics, and what made you move to a different area of work?
lutorm 13y ago
This is why experimental airplanes often have far superior avionics these days: you can put anything you want in one, without any certification. The result is cheaper and better alternatives. I believe there are efforts underway to change the rules to avoid this "making the perfect the enemy of the good" effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Airplane_Revitalization_Act_of_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Airplane_Revitalization_A...