EFIS Features ? the Information Revolution

[Ironflight]

Paul,
I've had my 496 for a year now and just don't "see" those tick marks you mention. What am I missing?,

This is a really hard option to find Pierre - I am not in the airplane right now (it's at the Knoxville Downtown airport, and I'm in Oak ridge), but I think that it is on the "Map Setup" page - something like flight path indicator - i can never find it easily. You can set the interval between tick marks for time or distance, and for how far out in front you want it to show. REALLY useful!

Paul

 

[AltonD]

...when are we going to transition away from AM aviation band radios and into digital voice and data? Seems to me that change is way long overdue...

...I am thinking of a system that pretty much comes on when you power on the aircraft and automatically establishes and maintains comms with ATC depending on where you are and what you are doing. Automatically and continuously gets weather digitally and is ready at any moment to display it to the pilot. Automatically updates the altimeter. Automatically sets the transponder as directed by ATC. Automatically connects you to the appropriate ATC or FSS. Allows ATC to call you even if you aren't listening to them.

... I am thinking of a high UHF or microwave band of freqs that would have drastically more bandwidth than the current avband. Automatic transfer from aircraft to aircraft of position and altitude so everybody know where everybody else is in relation to themselves.

Seems like this is all easy technically and way overdue.

--JCB

Very do-able. But. . . .imagine the cost. I would really hate to replace my new 430W and SL30. EVERY AIRPLANE that needs com and let's not forget all of the ATC systems.

 

[Nomex Maximus]

Very do-able. But. . . .imagine the cost. I would really hate to replace my new 430W and SL30. EVERY AIRPLANE that needs com and let's not forget all of the ATC systems.

So, let's put the question another way... how long will we still be using AM avband radios, manually twisting knobs to enter frequencies and how long will a large part of ATC be about telling people to change frequencies?

 

[John Clark]

Hey! you are dealing with the FAA here.

So, let's put the question another way... how long will we still be using AM avband radios, manually twisting knobs to enter frequencies and how long will a large part of ATC be about telling people to change frequencies?

Well... there is this old line about the FAA being the world's largest buyer of vacuum tubes. Don't hold your breath.

John Clark
FAAST Team Member
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

 

[Kevin Horton]

So, let's put the question another way... how long will we still be using AM avband radios, manually twisting knobs to enter frequencies and how long will a large part of ATC be about telling people to change frequencies?

We'll be doing this as long as costs more to upgrade radios than it costs to keep using the ones we already have.

Business jets and to a lessor extent airliners are slowly moving into the world of Controller to Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC), but it is currently only used for some predeparture clearances and for some oceanic ATC communications. In-flight communications over land and near airports are still done the old fashioned way. I expect that eventually some of the busiest airspace might be out of bounds to aircraft that can't do (CPDLC), but those of us in RVs are usually happier to avoid such airspace, so we should be able to keep using regular Com radios for decades.

 

[RScott]

I just want all functions to be intuitive so I don't have to get out the manual if I haven't flown for a week. Maybe most or all units already are easy to use; I am not that far along so I don't know, but my Icom handheld radio needs lots of help in this department. By my definition, with a well designed unit you should be able to play with it for 5 minutes and have figured out 80% of the functions without the manual.

 

[n5lp]

Paul,
I've had my 496 for a year now and just don't "see" those tick marks you mention. What am I missing?

Regards,

Paul, I've never seen this option either. It sounds nice. I just looked through the owners manual and couldn't find anything about it there either.

Are you sure this option isn't on one of your other electronic gadgets? I may have to drive down to the airport to get my 496 to try and figure this out.

 

[hevansrv7a]

Paul is Correct

Paul, I've never seen this option either. It sounds nice. I just looked through the owners manual and couldn't find anything about it there either.

Are you sure this option isn't on one of your other electronic gadgets? I may have to drive down to the airport to get my 496 to try and figure this out.

I cannot find it in the manual either, but it is there and I use it all the time because it shows you where you will be in how long and makes it easy to aim the airplane at anything on the map or to steer around some airspace. It only shows on the map page - the one with the EFIS arc and four data fields in the corners.

 

[N941WR]

Found it...

Paul,
I've had my 496 for a year now and just don't "see" those tick marks you mention. What am I missing?

Regards,

Here is how you turn it on:
Go to the map screen
Press "Menu" once
Scroll down to "Set Up Map"
Scroll over to the "Line" tab
Turn on "Heading Line"

You can set the Heading line by time or distance, your call.
There are also Bearing Lines and Course Lines you can set.

Having just read this thread and having my 496 on my desk, it still took me some time to figure out how to turn it on.

Paul, which line do you have turned on?

 

[rvator51]

If you had the course line enabled, I am thinking it should adjust for winds aloft and show where the airplane will actually be in x min/time?

 

[Brantel]

This is a really hard option to find Pierre - I am not in the airplane right now (it's at the Knoxville Downtown airport, and I'm in Oak ridge), but I think that it is on the "Map Setup" page - something like flight path indicator - i can never find it easily. You can set the interval between tick marks for time or distance, and for how far out in front you want it to show. REALLY useful!

Paul

Paul,

Your an hour away by car from my neck of the woods. How long are you here for?

 

[Brantel]

These features are also in the 296. I have used it before.

Here is how you turn it on:
Go to the map screen
Press "Menu" once
Scroll down to "Set Up Map"
Scroll over to the "Line" tab
Turn on "Heading Line"

You can set the Heading line by time or distance, your call.
There are also Bearing Lines and Course Lines you can set.

Having just read this thread and having my 496 on my desk, it still took me some time to figure out how to turn it on.

Paul, which line do you have turned on?

 

[ww2planes]

Something Simple

I like the idea of just keeping it simple. I think that if someone came up with a small EFIS that fits in the 3-1/8 cut out with just the basics in it they would clean house. Give it the following.

color Screen
Horizon
Airspeed
Altitude
VSI

Keep it under a grand and I would be happy to buy the first one. This would allow the basic VFR pilot to keep the panel simple and maybe enjoy the electronic world. I lake having my large GPS for the navigation and need the described instrument for my panel. I just do not need anything more.

 

[n5lp]

Here is how you turn it on:
Go to the map screen
Press "Menu" once
Scroll down to "Set Up Map"
Scroll over to the "Line" tab
Turn on "Heading Line"

You can set the Heading line by time or distance, your call.
There are also Bearing Lines and Course Lines you can set.

...

I just got back from the airport where I tried this in the air. With Paul's hint, it wasn't hard to find. I was momentarily confused by the terminology. I saw "Heading Line" and thought "but I don't want a heading line, I want a ground track line so I can see where I will be." Of course it isn't a heading line because the unit doesn't know what your heading is, it is a track line. Garmin, I love you folks, but I do wish you used correct terminology sometimes.

Anyway, cool beans. Paul, do you have any other undocumented 396/496 features to share?

 

[robertcs]

Tick mark?? =

Tick mark?? = Position Trend Vector... at least as per Honeywell. I don't know what others call them. They work great for hand flying turns on the active LNAV route line showing you where you are going to be. Another really cool tool is the Altitude Range Arc. "Based on present vertical speed and ground speed, indicates the approximate map position where the MCP (Mode Control Panel) altitude is reached."

 

[AltonD]

I think I have heard airline boys call it the "two minute noodle"

 

[groucho]

I think that if someone came up with a small EFIS that fits in the 3-1/8 cut out with just the basics in it they would clean house. Give it the following.

color Screen...Horizon...Airspeed...Altitude...VSI

I looked around for such an item just the other day...nothin'. Sure would look good in place of my current vacuum ADI (now declared a paperweight):

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

I like the idea of just keeping it simple. I think that if someone came up with a small EFIS that fits in the 3-1/8 cut out with just the basics in it they would clean house. Give it the following.

color Screen
Horizon
Airspeed
Altitude
VSI

Uhhh .... Dynon D10A?

TODR

 

[groucho]

Uhhh .... Dynon D10A?

No, what I'm thinking would live INSIDE the standard 3.125" cutout, not stick out from the panel if you used an existing hole. Since LCDs are typically rectangular, that'd make for a small screen, but it'd be enough for a bare-bones entry level EFIS or backup instrument. It'd need an internal battery too...

 

[Nomex Maximus]

Need to stop thinking EFIS and start thinking Flight Computer...

It seems to me that what we really need at this point is to get away from the idea that we want an computer controlled EFIS display and more towards the idea that we want a flight computer in the plane.

The thing that everyone is buying these days is basically either a GPS unit that has a cool-looking display, or some sort of EFIS device that also has a cool looking display. But both of these devices have relatively limited computing power inside - both in terms of processor power and also in terms of flexibility and adaptability of the software inside. Your Garmin 430 (or whatever) is only capable of being a Garmin 430 - it is not designed to do anything other than display GPS information and control the radios embedded within it. You can't, for example, download a FLIR program into it, or a new flight management program into it and use the display for something else. It is a GPS unit and short of Garmin giving you a whole new program for it that is all it ever will be.

In the transport aircraft / airliner world these days the move is towards a big box with many general purpose processor boards inside. The C130 AMP that I am working on has two boxes about two feet long each that have a large number of general purpose processor cards and a number of video cards, all of which can be adapted as needed for future missions of the aircraft. On each processor card is an "ARINC-653" operating system which allows any number of third party developed partitions (application programs) to be run with complete integrity. The C130 can be configured one way now and can do any number of different things in the future all with the same hardware. The Boeing 787 has a similar flight computer system. The flight computer not only does all of the flight management work of the aircraft, it also does the radios, comms, integrates all of the various aircraft sensors and LRUs and also drives the EFIS displays.

So how does this relate to a small RV type of airplane? The same concept is needed but smaller lighter electronics. As I have suggested before, you need a flightworthy avionics computer of about the size and weight of a laptop PC. Mount it under the pilot's seat perhaps. It is a central integration point for all of the aircraft's sensors - engine, air data, GPS, nav, comms, satellite weather radio, everything. That flight computer outputs data as needed for intelligent flight displays - any number, any size as the aircraft designer desires. A standard (ethernet based) protocol is established to allow any display or interface device or new avionics unit that supports the protocol to be added to the system.

Once you have this general purpose flight computer in the airplane you can do absolutely anything you want with the avionics of the airplane. Your displays can be as elaborate or as simple as you like. Since the computer is assumed to be a high integrity system, you can trust it to do many (most) of the tedious tasks of flying, allowing the pilot to be the primary decision maker of the flight and leaving the computer to do the hard work. The keys then are high processor power, general purpose computing platform, high integrity operating system and an open avionics architecture.

Now THAT is the system I want in my plane!

-- NM

 

[CraigC]

Nomex Max,

That would be cool. But I think the price would be so far out of most builders range as to be a non starter. I think for what we need and the mission we fly we have the right equipment. The market will bring out what people will buy or those companies will not be around long.

 

[breister]

I'd like to be able to dial in a Victor airway by number and have the EFIS/moving map ask me how far I'd like to take it (final way point). Then it would include all of the intermediate waypoints on my route, without me having to punch them each in individually. For example, if I fly from my home base of KSBP down to San Diego, I'll probably get V597. That has 7 seperate waypoints going through the L.A. basin that I have to manually enter. I would be easier to dial in V597 ending at SAN, and be done with it. This would be especially helpful if you got re-routed in flight. I'm pretty sure the new display by L-3 is supposed to do this, but I don't know if any others do.

Paul

That is already available in the Garmin GNS 480. It has been discontinued recently - there may be some very good deals available.

 

[Nomex Maximus]

Nomex Max,

That would be cool. But I think the price would be so far out of most builders range as to be a non starter. I think for what we need and the mission we fly we have the right equipment. The market will bring out what people will buy or those companies will not be around long.

I'd disagree. The computer you need is not much more than a laptop - without the disk drive and without the display. No reason why it needs to be more than a few hundred to a thousand or so. You'd proably want two or more for redundancy. It needs to be ruggedized, so you'd want to put it inside a sturdy enclosure. The display panel computer is similar, just, it has a display panel. Again, I see the total cost at way, way, way less than a $10,000 Garmin system.

It's all a matter of what kind of software you put in the thing. Being a software engineer, that is very easy for me. Perhaps not so easy for others. However, I can imagine programming many (most?) of the application programs in Java - so if you can program a Java program on your PC you can certainly program an application for your flight deck. In fact, you can program and test the flight apps programs on your PC and then simply download the JAR file to the flight computer. And, no, that wouldn't be the approach I'd take with my system, but it does have its advantages. And yes, I have seen a flight display done in Java - the recon pod of the British Tornado GR4 has such an example.

Keep in mind I am not rolling in dough here myself and the basic costs still ahead for my RV are considerable - engine, finish kit, FWF kit, basic instruments still have to be purchased here, so no, I don't want an avionics system that is going to cost more than a few hundred dollars. And yes, I think I can do it for that.

--NM

 

[GrayHawk]

I tend to agree with Maximus. What you really want is versatile & relaible Multi-Function-Display (MFD, computer) that can perform many functions, some of which are the usual EFIS functions. Inputs accepted from various specialized sensors, some of which may have dedicated processors to offload the main computer: AHRS, magnetometer, engine module, GPS, Wx, specialized I/O, and possibly in the future video, IR....

Does not need to be that expensive.

 

[Ironflight]

I just got back from the airport where I tried this in the air. With Paul's hint, it wasn't hard to find. I was momentarily confused by the terminology. I saw "Heading Line" and thought "but I don't want a heading line, I want a ground track line so I can see where I will be." Of course it isn't a heading line because the unit doesn't know what your heading is, it is a track line. Garmin, I love you folks, but I do wish you used correct terminology sometimes.

Anyway, cool beans. Paul, do you have any other undocumented 396/496 features to share?

Glad that you guys found it without my help - I actually looked in the manual yesterday that I have on my laptop, and couldn't find it.....I learned a few other tricks that I didn't find in the manual from a training DVD on the 396 (which Louise now has, so I can't tell you any specifically...), one being that "The menu button is always your friend". If you in the menu system, looking at the NEXRAD image (for instance), you can press and hold the menu key for a second at it will put you in "cursor" mode - easier than enabling the cursor mode with a couple other keystrokes...

But off of the X96 and back to EFIS's...I've seen some very interesting ideas presented for features that really should be easily implemented by clever software writing. I hope that some code mavens are out there giving them a try right now....


As for all the hardware and architectural ideas - yup, they are pretty cool as well. Not exactly what I was thinking about when I started the thread (I was just trying to smoke out operational "features" that can be implemented with current systems), but I would love to see the next step being essentially full up FMS capabilities.Then again, I know that I keep discovering things that my current systems will do that I didn't know about....

Paul

 

[Nomex Maximus]

It's supposed to be experimental aviation...

. . .

As for all the hardware and architectural ideas - yup, they are pretty cool as well. Not exactly what I was thinking about when I started the thread (I was just trying to smoke out operational "features" that can be implemented with current systems), but I would love to see the next step being essentially full up FMS capabilities.Then again, I know that I keep discovering things that my current systems will do that I didn't know about....

Paul

This is experimental aviation. Some RVers experiment with new engines, some build their own props. I do software.

I went back to your original post. You want ideas for either "How do I get current system X to do Y?" or, "Wouldn't it be nice if system X did Y?" My response is that NONE of the systems that are out there do anywhere near what I would want in an airplane. Certainly not for the money involved. If I want to have what I want then I am going to have to build it myself from scratch. But there are tradeoffs to consider.

The first iteration of my RV is going to be bare bones basic aviation. Minimum instruments for VFR flight. No avionics, just a handheld radio for comms. But the instruments will be arranged so that they will be in the right places later on to be backup instruments leaving the large areas of the panel free for my own avionics later on.

I have a tradeoff decision to make. Do I save time and buy something that is out there already, but accept that it is a whole lot less capability that what I really want, and that costs very big $$$? Or, do I spend the time and effort and build something of my own that I know will do exactly what I want and be truly impressive technically?

Just getting the airframe flying is an enormous effort, do I need to be adding in the time and effort to build my own avionics? At this point I don't know which way I will go. I do however know which way I can go.

-- NM

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Interesting discussion. I agree that a FMS is really what one wants for an IFR system. The G480 had some of these features - when you put together a flight plan, it asked you how you wanted to get from this waypoint to the next - direct, via Vxxx, etc. FMS should be modular, able to accept 429 data from a variety of sources. AHRS should not be proprietary.

The two problems I see: #1 - Getting TSO approval / meeting the TSO specs for IFR guidance. #2 - Being flexible in the types of displays supported by the FMS. I suppose #1 is the hard one.

The hardware is readily available in COTS stuff - displays are now cheap and embedded / hardened computers are also available. Several good realtime OS are available (e.g., VwWorks). It's just a matter of tinkering with the hardware and, or course, writing the software.

I won't get into what any specific vendor has done, but all of them have made significant improvements to their software over time to include new features and improve reliability (this is why I never want to see Microsoft in the avionics business - Bill G himself once said that fixing bugs was a "stupid" reason for releasing new versions of software).

The software is the key.

TODR

 

[CraigC]

Nomex,

I see your point and agree. If you are PC basing the EFIS that would make it more flexible for Mod Updates. What I am curious about is as a software writer are you just wanting to force airline/military FMS into the RV world, or have you really thought of different mission requirements for the RV? Actual things that fast movers and airlines could not use but that we can. Maybe things like HITS for aerobatics, where you can get instruction first, upload what your instructor wants you to practice and see how good you are. The fly through boxes get smaller as you get better. Autopilot auto return to landing and rollout at your airport in case of pilot incapacitation. What good are pretty gadgets if they cannot bring you home? Yes I am talking CAT IIIC functionality. Anyway, just don't force everything to fit one form factor. Think outside the box.

 

[Nomex Maximus]

It's not JUST an FMS...

Craig -

I am trying to get away from TWO things.

First, I am trying to get away from the current style of EFIS/GPS unit/Engine Monitor / whatever that we see in the marketplace right now for GA. So many shortcomings - I hate the "big knob little knob" and page styled user interfaces. I hate the little displays. I hate the high cost. I dislike the density of information on the little displays - too many details in too small a space. I dislike the simple display of detailed information without the analysis of that information. I dislike that they are only designed to do one thing - display information.

Second, I am definitely trying to get away from the caveman and dinosaur mentality of modern military and transport avionics. It is truly amazing how primitive some of the software and systems are that are in even the most advanced airliners and fighters (cough, cough space shuttle cough). Two dimensional graphics. Monochrome graphics. Text based MCDUs as the primary human interface to the FMS. ARINC 429 serial interfaces - or, if they get more advanced they have 1553B - which is 1980's technology. Don't get me started about the bad software architectural designs inside.

What I am hoping to do - or motivate others to do, since I doubt I am ever going to try and start a business doing this - is to develop a flight computer system that makes flying a GA aircraft (like an RV) easy and enjoyable. Particularily for cross country and IFR flying, and which helps the pilot in emergency situations.

When I am sitting in the airplane flying somewhere, I don't want to be doing an instrument scan - I want to be looking out the window and be enjoying the flight. I only want the computer to bother me if we are not flying as expected. I don't want to be tediously watching the engine instruments trying to discern if the engine is developing a problem - I want the computer to monitor the engine and only bother me if there is a problem. And a lot of the time, I don't want to be having to tediously work to maintain alltitude and course. I want the computer to do that for me. I don't want to have to keep track of waypoints and ETAs and fuel consumption - I want the computer to do that for me and let me know if there is a problem.

In short, all I really want to see in front of me during a normal flight is:

• Airspeed
• Altitude
• Heading
• Fuel Remaining
• and my present position and intended flight path displayed on a full color sectional chart, decluttered as much as I want.

In an emergency or during off-normal operation THEN I want all the details, but only then. Or, if I want to shut off all the automation and just fly the airplane the old fashioned way with my backup instruments.

-- NM

 

[Ironflight]

When I am sitting in the airplane flying somewhere, I don't want to be doing an instrument scan - I want to be looking out the window and be enjoying the flight. I only want the computer to bother me if we are not flying as expected. I don't want to be tediously watching the engine instruments trying to discern if the engine is developing a problem - I want the computer to monitor the engine and only bother me if there is a problem. And a lot of the time, I don't want to be having to tediously work to maintain alltitude and course. I want the computer to do that for me. I don't want to have to keep track of waypoints and ETAs and fuel consumption - I want the computer to do that for me and let me know if there is a problem.

-- John Babrick

Yeah, but John....that is EXACTLY what my GRT (with the TT autopilot) does for me today - every single point. And I know that other EFIS systems provide the same capabilities. The purpose of this thread (and it has done well!) is to collect specific, identifiable operational feateures that people would like to see. As you (and others) have pointed out, this is pretty much software at this point. It is amazing the enhancements that have come along becasue folks simply asked the various manufacturers to add a feature.

Paul

 

[Nomex Maximus]

Yeah, but John....that is EXACTLY what my GRT (with the TT autopilot) does for me today - every single point.

I am going to have to go track them down since I live right next door...

And I know that other EFIS systems provide the same capabilities. The purpose of this thread (and it has done well!) is to collect specific, identifiable operational feateures that people would like to see. As you (and others) have pointed out, this is pretty much software at this point. It is amazing the enhancements that have come along becasue folks simply asked the various manufacturers to add a feature.

Paul

Not entirely software. Hardware - a cheap reliable general purpose flightworthy computer and display is what is really needed.

My friend started an avionics (head up display) company a few years back and I worked for him for a time (it is now part of CMC Electronics). His focus was on HUDs. To build HUDs he needed to build a mission computer, which he did. But what I tried to get him to see was that now that he had a flightworthy mission computer he/we could do anything - we didn't have to limit ourselves to making HUDs. And suprisingly, ten years later, I find myself at a company (GE Aviation) that is realizing that FMSes are nice but it is really more about putting the flightworthy computer to use however the aircraft needs it.

You want to see me plunk down $4000 tomorrow? Show me a flightworthy computer and display that I can program as I see fit, or into which I can put any avionics application I want. That is where the future of GA avionics should be going.

-- NM

 

[Rainier Lamers]

You want to see me plunk down $4000 tomorrow? Show me a flightworthy computer and display that I can program as I see fit, or into which I can put any avionics application I want. That is where the future of GA avionics should be going.

-- John Babrick

You want to buy a ruggedised PC with a 12/24V power supply and integrated display panel.
These are readily available and your $4000 should be able to buy you a good one. Then just add sensors that are available in OEM versions with documented protocols to make it easy to use them. You will need an AHRS such as our SP-4 or new SP-5 if you want something top of the crop. Add the SP-2 as magnetometer then get one of our Flight-II Airdata systems for altitude, ASI, VSI etc. One of our RDAC-XE OEM engine monitors or perhaps a GRT EIS will complete your basic package. Leave a serial port so you can plug in a Garmin or other GPS.
Then all you need is a few weekends hacking away with your favourite C compiler and you'll have exactly what you want.

So easy !?

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

 

[Nomex Maximus]

You want to buy a ruggedised PC with a 12/24V power supply and integrated display panel.
These are readily available and your $4000 should be able to buy you a good one. Then just add sensors that are available in OEM versions with documented protocols to make it easy to use them. You will need an AHRS such as our SP-4 or new SP-5 if you want something top of the crop. Add the SP-2 as magnetometer then get one of our Flight-II Airdata systems for altitude, ASI, VSI etc. One of our RDAC-XE OEM engine monitors or perhaps a GRT EIS will complete your basic package. Leave a serial port so you can plug in a Garmin or other GPS.
Then all you need is a few weekends hacking away with your favourite C compiler and you'll have exactly what you want.

So easy !?

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

Well of course, the ruggedized PC approach has many drawbacks, as I am sure you know. It can however be made to work. When I consider doing that I am trying to put an upper bound on how much the project would cost and what the minimum effort would be to have almost what I want.

It seems to me that this approach leaves you with three or so undesirable possible paths to follow. 1) Live with MS Windows as the operating system. This is more do-able than many people would like to admit, but that's a lot of excess baggage I don't want. 2) Try using embedded Linux, which would not be as bad as Windows, but still a lot of work to use something you really don't need or want. 3) Try an implement you own 653 styled OS on top of the tablet PC hardware. The disadvantage that I see to this is that you end up having to write your own drivers and BIOS for the complex chipsets of the tablet PC. Any of these approaches can be made to work (and work not too badly) but they are a lot more work than just designing a computer specifically for the general purpose avionics application.

I want this flightworthy computer to be as simple as possible - just a high powered processor, a large amount of RAM, a large mount of flash memory, two to four network interfaces, two serial interfaces, and maybe a USB hub. The display panel has, in addition, the display and the associated electronics. I don't want it to have to support all the things that a Windows PC has to support - no disk drive support, no plug and play, no PCI bus, no video cards, no sound cards, etc. With such a simple computer developing an operating system should be straightforward. I also want this computer to be physically small and rugged - a bit smaller than a tablet PC if possible. I want it to be a simple small high powered processor that is ground configurable to run any avionics application programs necessary. That is a significantly different computer than a tablet PC.

--NM

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

It seems to me that this approach leaves you with three or so undesirable possible paths to follow. 1) Live with MS Windows as the operating system. This is more do-able than many people would like to admit, but that's a lot of excess baggage I don't want. 2) Try using embedded Linux, which would not be as bad as Windows, but still a lot of work to use something you really don't need or want. 3) Try an implement you own 653 styled OS on top of the tablet PC hardware. The disadvantage that I see to this is that you end up having to write your own drivers and BIOS for the complex chipsets of the tablet PC. Any of these approaches can be made to work (and work not too badly) but they are a lot more work than just designing a computer specifically for the general purpose avionics application.

There are lots of run-time OS available, some of which are open source and/or free. Someone else has done this work.

TODR

 

[Jamie]

Maximus:

Have you checked out Little PC?

Yeah, it's not an embedded platform and has all the PC stuff, but it's pretty nifty as is. They can ship it to you with solid state hard drives, etc. They also have frameless sunlight readable touch screens. It looks like an interesting concept.

A customer of mine used their boxes in a delivery truck so I had one sitting on my desk for a while. The boxes are very well constructed and can be mounted anywhere. They're also setup for 12VDC.

 

[Nomex Maximus]

There are lots of run-time OS available, some of which are open source and/or free. Someone else has done this work.

TODR

Oh yeah, I know there are lots of OSs out there... but is there one that does exactly what I want? Software reuse is great, but it usually comes with a significant price.

 

[Nomex Maximus]

Maximus:

Have you checked out Little PC?
. . .

Oh, I am well familiar with Stealth Computer. My previous employer used them in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle that we were using as a test bed for an active anti-armor missile defense system. I had one sitting on my desk. Nice computer, sort of pricey at the time. It was after all just a PC with all the disadvantages I mentioned before. It is great IF you really want a Windows or Linux PC in your airplane. I don't need or want about 80% of what theat computer offers for the avionics application I am envisioning. And, it seems doubtful that you could take this system to the next step and get it ceritified. Not that I need to certify a system for my own airplane, but a better solution (I think) would leave the certification door open...

BTW, the reason we were using a Stealth computer was to gather instrumentation data while the vehicle was being shot at. This large armored vehicle was to be pulled along by a long steel cable with a large complex cable of ethernet and power cables trailed off of the back. The tank then pulled along a tank shaped target behind it. The gunners would aim the live anti-tank missiles at the target and the active defense system would shoot down the incoming missiles. The point was that all the Stealth computer was needed for was to collect a few bytes of data at ten hertz and send it over the ethernet to the command bunker. They were using a $10,000 computer to do this. And to top this all off, there was a glitch with the A/D card they wanted to use - it wouldn't work in the Stealth PC and no amount of work by Stealth or us would make the card work in the Stealth with Windows. I proposed a solution that used a $250 Rabbit SBC ( www.rabbit.com ) instead. Moral of the story - there can be big disadvantages to using the wrong computer.

--NM

 

[hevansrv7a]

GRT Discovery - Angle of Climb

After some emails and a good conversation with Carlos, I discovered that my GRT already has - right now - the ability to show the angle of climb. The flight path marker (FPM) is a little bullseye and the pitch indicator is a circle with a horizonal line through it. The pitch ladder is static with respect to the horizon. The FPM therefore shows you the angle of flight, up or down. This is what I wanted - to be able to fly the indicator for best angle, not just a predetermined speed that is only accurate at the same conditions as those used to find that speed. Knowing the immediate performance is maximized can be very important depending on how you feel about obstacles.

You can see examples on their home page.

From what I know of how TruTrack does their displays, it would work this way, too.

This is another instance where the EFIS can do things that the 6-pack cannot. Useful things. Things that are important to safety.

Since the pitch ladder is a little crude, I made 1/16" tick marks on a piece of clear plastic and put it on the display so I can learn to use the FPM and get an idea what approximate speeds and what angle of attack are ideal for this. When I think about the characteristics of a fixed pitch prop I think that even AOA is not as good as the FPM. Also, if the engine is not exactly the same as it was when tested, the FPM is better. WX lousy today, so I'll test it next nice day.

Confirming what someone reported, GRT is also working on calculated angle of attack.

 

[Mike S]

Take a look at

http://www.planepc.net/products-displays.htm

By the way, the program shown in the displays is Mountainscope.

http://www.pcavionics.com/index.jsp

 

[Rainier Lamers]

Well of course, the ruggedized PC approach has many drawbacks, as I am sure you know. It can however be made to work. When I consider doing that I am trying to put an upper bound on how much the project would cost and what the minimum effort would be to have almost what I want.

It seems to me that this approach leaves you with three or so undesirable possible paths to follow. 1) Live with MS Windows as the operating system. This is more do-able than many people would like to admit, but that's a lot of excess baggage I don't want. 2) Try using embedded Linux, which would not be as bad as Windows, but still a lot of work to use something you really don't need or want. 3) Try an implement you own 653 styled OS on top of the tablet PC hardware. The disadvantage that I see to this is that you end up having to write your own drivers and BIOS for the complex chipsets of the tablet PC. Any of these approaches can be made to work (and work not too badly) but they are a lot more work than just designing a computer specifically for the general purpose avionics application.

I want this flightworthy computer to be as simple as possible - just a high powered processor, a large amount of RAM, a large mount of flash memory, two to four network interfaces, two serial interfaces, and maybe a USB hub. The display panel has, in addition, the display and the associated electronics. I don't want it to have to support all the things that a Windows PC has to support - no disk drive support, no plug and play, no PCI bus, no video cards, no sound cards, etc. With such a simple computer developing an operating system should be straightforward. I also want this computer to be physically small and rugged - a bit smaller than a tablet PC if possible. I want it to be a simple small high powered processor that is ground configurable to run any avionics application programs necessary. That is a significantly different computer than a tablet PC.

--John Babrick

Well, in that case your easiest route may be one of those little memory socket card based systems - they are tiny and you can buy them for a good price with a Windows CE 6.0 license. They can be had with quite powerful processors and a good amount of memory. Windows CE 6.0 is quite good and (once you get your mind around how to use it) is effective and will isolate you from all the complexities of having to initialize the system and service all the hardware interfaces.
Then you just need something to surround this with power supplies, sensors and interfaces to sensors, display, user interface and a couple of related things and you should have a usable system.
Look at www.toradex.com for some ideas. I believe GRT uses Windows 6.0 so that should be a recomendation for it.

It's pretty much what we do - except of course that we make our own CPU modules and write our own operating systems. Both of these tasks are not essential however and you can buy both readily made for a very reasonable price.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

 

[Nomex Maximus]

Ranier-

I took a look (again) at your page and your product is quite impressive. But for me the thrust of this thread was how to go to the next step.

What I am seeing from all the present vendors is a display intensive system - show the pilot more and more detailed information - and for me that is not what I want. It's nice for example that some systems (yours?) gives me detailed data about the cylinder head temperature, the EGT, the RPMs the maniforld pressure, the voltage, etc, etc, etc, hoping that I as the pilot will interpret all of that moment by moment and be able to discern when the engine is going bad.

For me though, I'd rather have the computer do all of that, and as long as the engine is running normally not show me anything about the engine at all. (Is this a computer system I can trust with my life or not? If not, then it should be.) As long as the engine (for example) is doing OK I don't want to be bothered with it. If it begins to develop a problem, then I want the computer to put up all the data and suggest what is wrong and what I should do about it.

Same way with almost anything else that the computer can touch in the airplane. As long as everything is nominal I want just the minimum of information in front of me to keep my on course and tell me where I am and let me go about the business of flying the airplane. When something goes wrong, then I want the computer to be helping me with all sorts of options -where the closest landings spots are, configuring radios for emergency use, providing checklists, and so on. That is all more than just a flight display, that is serious avionics that requires a more dedicated and specialized computing platform.

I am not seeing anything like this in the current batch of avionics, so I am motivated to roll my own. Of course, I need an airplane to roll it into and I am still working on the rudder.

--NM

 

[Rainier Lamers]

Ranier-

I took a look (again) at your page and your product is quite impressive. But for me the thrust of this thread was how to go to the next step.

What I am seeing from all the present vendors is a display intensive system - show the pilot more and more detailed information - and for me that is not what I want. It's nice for example that some systems (yours?) gives me detailed data about the cylinder head temperature, the EGT, the RPMs the maniforld pressure, the voltage, etc, etc, etc, hoping that I as the pilot will interpret all of that moment by moment and be able to discern when the engine is going bad.

For me though, I'd rather have the computer do all of that, and as long as the engine is running normally not show me anything about the engine at all. (Is this a computer system I can trust with my life or not? If not, then it should be.) As long as the engine (for example) is doing OK I don't want to be bothered with it. If it begins to develop a problem, then I want the computer to put up all the data and suggest what is wrong and what I should do about it.

Same way with almost anything else that the computer can touch in the airplane. As long as everything is nominal I want just the minimum of information in front of me to keep my on course and tell me where I am and let me go about the business of flying the airplane. When something goes wrong, then I want the computer to be helping me with all sorts of options -where the closest landings spots are, configuring radios for emergency use, providing checklists, and so on. That is all more than just a flight display, that is serious avionics that requires a more dedicated and specialized computing platform.

I am not seeing anything like this in the current batch of avionics, so I am motivated to roll my own. Of course, I need an airplane to roll it into and I am still working on the rudder.

--John Babrick

Hmm, I don't think you will find too many takers for that - pilots are a distrustfull lot - and for good reason. I think you will find most EFIS builders trying their best to show as much information as possible - but (and this is a big BUT) this must be done in a way so it does not appear overwelming. I myself would not trust any "fixed" intelligence to decide for me what I need to know and what I don't need to know.
From my own flying I believe in pictures - my engine monitor for example is typically done in way that it forms a picture with bargraphs (these work well for me) and these are filled with colors. I don't need to look at actual values (unless I want to). I just scan the picture and if it looks right it is right. If anything goes out of place (and it does not yet trigger a warning or alarm) I notice this quite quickly because the picture has changed - at that time I will start looking at all the indicators so I can form an opinion on what is about to ruin my day or if it is "DNC" (do not care).

There is a groundswell of opinion against many EFIS systems due to the amount of information displayed. The source of this tends to be pilots that are not familiar with flying behind the more complex panels. Those that do, very quickly change their opinion (this is something we get almost daily). Once you know where to look and what you are being told - it becomes very natural, even with lots of information on a very small screen - what you need to get into your system is where to look - that is all. It's not really that different from a normal steam gauge panel.

My personal opinion on information is: I want as much as possible, I want everything that is relevant and I don't want a fancy smancy CPU to make vital decisions for me - it must guide me with information in a way that makes it easy for me, but in the cockpit I am the boss - not the EFIS.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

 

[Nomex Maximus]

Komputer is your friend!

Hmm, I don't think you will find too many takers for that - pilots are a distrustfull lot - and for good reason. I think you will find most EFIS builders trying their best to show as much information as possible -
. . .
My personal opinion on information is: I want as much as possible, I want everything that is relevant and I don't want a fancy smancy CPU to make vital decisions for me - it must guide me with information in a way that makes it easy for me, but in the cockpit I am the boss - not the EFIS.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

Let's take the engine for example. I am flying in the airplane behind this big noisey vibrating machine. I already know what it is supposed to sound like and how many RPMs and about what manifold pressure it should be at. In order to not trust a computer to monitor this for me, I have to every few seconds check the engine instruments - whether they are steam gauge or EFIS displayed, only to find that, well, whadyaknow, everything is normal. To me that is a waste of my effort if I can have a computer do it for me. In fact, to do this myself I have to spend a fair amount of effort monitoring the engine only to find out it is operating normally - I have to keep track in my head what I am trying to do, and what the engine has been doing cylinder by cylnider for the past few minutes. Your EFIS helps in this regard by displaying the trend graphs. But for me, if I trust your EFIS to keep track of making the engine readings and to display them correctly, then why can't I trust it to diagnose the current state of the engine? If it is normal, then I trust that I can disregard further efforts to track its progress. If it is abnormal, then the computer is going to alert me and suggest corrective action.

If the carburator is icing, then what I suspect will happen is that either me or the computer is going to figure that out - it's just a matter of which figures it out first. I suspect that the computer can figure it out and warn me probably a little sooner than I would notice it. Perhaps not. If I don't detect this from just hearing the engine, then wouldn't it be nice if the computer made sure I knew about it? I think so.

If you want to go one step further (which is what this thread is about) how about vibration analysis of the running engine? Have an application running in the background that distinguishes between the normal operation of the engine and developing abnormal operation? Do-able, but probably not in a little panel mounted EFIS display. Useful? You tell me - if an engine is losing oil and bearings are starting to go, how soon would you like to know about that? And if this is happening, wouldn't it be nice if the computer sprung into action with 1) a warning of impending engine trouble and 2) the five best headings to the nearest airports and 3) the emergency checklists?

You trust almost everything else in the airplane with your life. Why is it so hard to trust an airplane computer to help you fly the airplane?

--NM

 

[Ironflight]

Monitor the Nominal, Alert the Off-nominal....

I like LOTS of information - I'll say that up front! But what I really want is USEFUL information......

I have spent many decades flying and monitoring some pretty sophisticated aerospace equipment, and my experience is that you really want to have the computers monitoring and looking out for off-nominal conditions, but at the same time, you want the operator (the pilot) to be as well-informed of the nominal conditions as you can. I know that I'm taking your thoughts to the extreme John, so forgive me, but it's not a good idea to have a "blank screen" until something goes wrong, because then, when you have a problem, the pilot is too far out of the loop to respond appropriately. At the same time, we don't want him staring at engine parameters to the exclusion of navigation data, so that he is totally lost in a fine-running airplane!

So I like moving maps and PFD's with lots of nominal information. I like to have a few engine PERFORMANCE parameters (RPM and %power displayed. But I want the system to watch over things like oil pressure and temperature, voltage, bus voltage, CHT's, and the like - and alert me if something looks "funny". I think that there is a lot of potential for smart software to monitor these things and see trends - both single flight and long term. This has been our experience in monitoring spacecraft - let the computers do the mind-numbing staring at straight parameters, look for developing problems, and alert the humans if needed - while the humans do the creative task of figuring how to best accomplish the mission. The humans need information to do this.

One simple example that most of the EFIS/EIS systems are doing is to display Percent Horsepower. When it comes right down to it, from a "flying the airplane": standpoint, no one really cares about Manifold Pressure. Speed, range, fuel flow, range - all are actually done most easily with % HP, and if all you have is RPM and MAP, you have to do mental math, or go to a graph to figure out where you are on the curves. With the computers doing this for you, the pilot can simply set the power he wants, and go on to other business.

Presenting Information - not just Data - is what I started this thread to be about, and it has brought up some interesting points. So far, most of the ideas I have read are eminently "do-able", since they already exist in many systems. A good collection of ideas.

Paul

 

[SteinAir]

Ranier-

What I am seeing from all the present vendors is a display intensive system - show the pilot more and more detailed information - and for me that is not what I want. It's nice for example that some systems (yours?) gives me detailed data about the cylinder head temperature, the EGT, the RPMs the maniforld pressure, the voltage, etc, etc, etc, hoping that I as the pilot will interpret all of that moment by moment and be able to discern when the engine is going bad.

For me though, I'd rather have the computer do all of that, and as long as the engine is running normally not show me anything about the engine at all. (Is this a computer system I can trust with my life or not? If not, then it should be.) As long as the engine (for example) is doing OK I don't want to be bothered with it. If it begins to develop a problem, then I want the computer to put up all the data and suggest what is wrong and what I should do about it.

Same way with almost anything else that the computer can touch in the airplane. As long as everything is nominal I want just the minimum of information in front of me to keep my on course and tell me where I am and let me go about the business of flying the airplane. When something goes wrong, then I want the computer to be helping me with all sorts of options -where the closest landings spots are, configuring radios for emergency use, providing checklists, and so on. That is all more than just a flight display, that is serious avionics that requires a more dedicated and specialized computing platform.

I am not seeing anything like this in the current batch of avionics, so I am motivated to roll my own. Of course, I need an airplane to roll it into and I am still working on the rudder.

--John Babrick

Um....that's pretty much how most of the current crop of EFISes and Engine Monitors work. Take the ones I know best. - Chelton, GRT, AFS, EI and Dynon. All of them monitor the systems for you. The better ones have min and max limits for everything, and the computer of course alerts you when things are out of those limits. The better EIS's also will allow you to program in "trend limits" which will also alert you if those parameters are exceeded. For example, EGT/CHT temp rise/fall in degrees per some period of time. If a parameter is moving outside of that limit, the system tells you. Same with pressures (oil, fuel, etc..) as well as voltages, etc..

From my standpoint the current crop of EIS's do exactly what you're asking them to do. They sit and watch things, then tell you when somehing is wrong (or even starting to go wrong) before you would ever even notice. I can't imagine trying to roll your own and end up with something better than is what exists.

I think you'll find that the better Engine Monitors out there all do what you are asking, and even some things above and beyond what you think. For example, one high end monitor watches which tank you are on, and alerts you of an impending imbalance (and it's much more than a simple timer - the computer knows which tank you're on, sees the fuel level in the tank, and also has a full fuel computer).

In the end, perhaps I mis-read you're post, but from my experience they do exactly what you want.

My 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein

 

[Nomex Maximus]

Um....that's pretty much how most of the current crop of EFISes and Engine Monitors work.

. . .

From my standpoint the current crop of EIS's do exactly what you're asking them to do. They sit and watch things, then tell you when somehing is wrong (or even starting to go wrong) before you would ever even notice. I can't imagine trying to roll your own and end up with something better than is what exists.

I can. Way better. (sorry, I don't mean to sound arrogant.)

I think you'll find that the better Engine Monitors out there all do what you are asking, and even some things above and beyond what you think. For example, one high end monitor watches which tank you are on, and alerts you of an impending imbalance (and it's much more than a simple timer - the computer knows which tank you're on, sees the fuel level in the tank, and also has a full fuel computer).

In the end, perhaps I mis-read you're post, but from my experience they do exactly what you want.

My 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein

No. What we have existing are highly dedicated do-one-thing type of systems. If the thing(s) they do meet your needs then fine. I want to have way, way, way more control over what the aircraft computer does and how it displays its results and over what it can do with its results.

I don't suspect that the market would ever support the devices and software I have been writing about here. That's OK, I am only really interested in doing a system like I have been writing about for my own plane, and that sort of as a personal science project. Which, after all, is sort of what building an RV is all about.

--NM

 

[Nomex Maximus]

I like LOTS of information - I'll say that up front! But what I really want is USEFUL information......

I have spent many decades flying and monitoring some pretty sophisticated aerospace equipment, and my experience is that you really want to have the computers monitoring and looking out for off-nominal conditions, but at the same time, you want the operator (the pilot) to be as well-informed of the nominal conditions as you can.
. . .
Presenting Information - not just Data - is what I started this thread to be about, and it has brought up some interesting points. So far, most of the ideas I have read are eminently "do-able", since they already exist in many systems. A good collection of ideas.

Paul

I would like to be able to selectively declutter as much information as possible. If you want to see everything that is going on in the airplane, by all means, press the appropriate buttons and you can see whatever you want in "my" system. But I do want the airplane computer to be able to "do" whatever I don't want to do.

I don't see "my" system as taking away control or decision making from the pilot. I see it as aiding the pilot and as reducing his workload so he can concentrate on the more important stuff. Ultimately, one has to be prepared for a complete, total and aburpt failure of the computer, so the pilot has to be prepared at any moment to take control and do things the old fashioned way.

--NM

 

[RatMan]

I can. Way better. (sorry, I don't mean to sound arrogant.)

--JCB

Wow! Garmin better watch their back. Everyone else, just give up.

I don't really know how much research you've done but Stein's right. Short of pressing the 'nearest' button for you, even the most inexpensive EFIS/EMS/GPS combinations will do what you have described plus a bit more.

I encourage you to press on though. A few years ago some pilots wanted to give up control of the engine, now we have FADEC.

 

[Ironflight]

A couple more "Intelligent" Feature ideas...

As I was flying along today, I thought of a couple more things that should easily be within the current capability of the many of the systems out there that would ease a pilot's mental workload and increase his situational awareness:

1) Dynamic redline - It has been fairly well established that the limiting speed for several of the RV's is the flutter limit, and this is a True airspeed, not an indicated one. On my EFIS, I have TAS constantly displayed in the corner of the PFD, so I can just watch to make sure I stay under 200 knots. But if the limit weren't such a nice round number, I'd have to remember it. Well, how about the EFIS computing the current IAS that corresponds to the fixed TAS limit, and dynamically driving the redline - sort of like the barberpole needle on a fast-mover's ASI.

2) Dynamic stall speed - we also all know that the speed at which the airplane will stall is dependent on G-load, and the EFIS knows G-load. Using existing information (and probably weight - we can get that with a few pilot inputs - see below), you could drive an indicator that shows the current stall speed. Yeah, i know, this is essentially the same as a computed AOA, and that would also be sufficient!

3) Weight and balance - Have a page where you could very simply enter the pilot, passenger, and baggage weight, If the EFIS already knows the airplane empty weight and it keeps track of fuels, then it will always know the current state of weight and balance. This could be used for other computations (such as dynamic stall speed and maneuvering speed), and also give you a quick check on where you are in the "box".

Paul

 

[Mike S]

3) Weight and balance - Have a page where you could very simply enter the pilot, passenger, and baggage weight, If the EFIS already knows the airplane empty weight and it keeps track of fuels, then it will always know the current state of weight and balance. This could be used for other computations (such as dynamic stall speed and maneuvering speed), and also give you a quick check on where you are in the "box".

Paul

Go get a look at an AFS 3500.

Side profile with CG limits shown, and current CG moves as you input weight into the program.

Top profile shows seats, fuel, and baggage-----just advance cursor to what you want to enter, twist knob to desired weight, and there it is.

http://www.advanced-flight-systems.com/Products/AF-3000/AFS EFIS V5-11 Full Size_7.gif

Major cool toy.

Too bad they dont sell the program for use on a PDA. I checked--