Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:49:36 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp800.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.168.179] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.7) with SMTP id 2742729 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:39:50 -0500 Received: from adsl-63-204-75-80.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net (HELO cessna206) (whiskeyb@sbcglobal.net@63.204.75.80 with login) by smtp-sbc-v1.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 14:39:47 -0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <001701c3ade1$d5d63ce0$5ff0fea9@cessna206> From: "whiskeyb" X-Original-To: "Lancair List" Subject: Fw: Testing of Flight Op EFIS X-Original-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 06:39:54 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_01C3AD9E.C67FD410" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C3AD9E.C67FD410 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable For any builder that are interested in the testing of the OP200 system I = have received this letter from OP. Wally ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Dexter Turner=20 To: 'whiskeyb'=20 Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 7:34 PM Subject: Testing of Flight Op EFIS Wally, =20 I wanted to send you a quick note to reply to some questions you had = about the AHRS that we use and the environmental testing that our unit = has undergone. As far as the AHRS goes, we ship the Crossbow AHRS 500, = which has developed a reputation that speaks for itself in the = experimental market. =20 =20 As far as the environmental testing goes, the only relevant testing to = talk about for airplanes is DO-160D. The tests covered in this document = are designed for the express purpose of simulating that environment that = equipment installed in various locations throughout the aircraft will be = subjected to. My company is made up of experienced avionics engineers = from Honeywell, Rockwell Collins and Boeing, companies that are = considered to be the finest in the world. We have learned and practiced = the trade of avionics engineering on several different certification = programs and this experience has taught us the value of having industry = standards such as DO-160. This experience has also taught us the level = of commitment that we need to bring to the projects we work on. Several = years ago, I was a manager a project in which the program manager was = fond of throwing out the question "would you fly your family with it?" = whenever the team was debating a design decision. The point he was = trying to instill in the minds of the team, and especially some of the = folks who hadn't been in this field all that long, was that what we did = for a living could have serious consequences for our end customers - the = folks who flew on the airplanes with our systems installed. We didn't = design clothes dryers or personal computers; we designed avionics - = systems which are relied on to bring our selves, or families, our = friends and prefect strangers safely to their destination through rain = or shine, day or night, through smooth or turbulent skies. I even have = a few other members from that team on the Op Technologies team today. = We wanted to recruit engineers with experience in avionics engineering = because we wanted folks who understood how critical what they did for a = living was, and who already had the strong foundation in the trade that = we needed to develop leading edge products. The engineering team we've = built has been contracted to help certify the WSI Inflight real-time = weather receiver, which is now shipping, and to consult on the = certification and develop software for the Jeppesen Electronic Flight = Bag, which just certified on the Boeing 777. These customers of our = engineering services recognize the experience and commitment that we = bring to the table.=20 =20 Having offered a little background of the culture in my company, I will = say with all certainty that we do not recognize any environmental = testing other than D0-160 as relevant to our trade. We could strap a = system in a clothes dryer and run it on permanent press for 60 minutes = and call it spin testing, but as an avionics engineer, the unit spinning = around with my underwear wouldn't tell me if this system was suitable = for installation on an airplane. Running the unit while its in a meat = freezer and then sticking it on a barbeque grill with the meat could be = called temperature variation testing, but again, it doesn't tell me = whether the system is suitable for installation on an airplane. I've = heard about garage-level tests like this and I have a hard time = believing that anyone is suggesting that DO-160 testing is not adequate = to simulate the conditions a piece of avionics needs to be designed for = and that these garage-level tests do a better job at modeling the = airplane environment. This suggests that the Collins Pro-Line is not = safe for IFR flight on a King Air until we get it in a clothes dryer = with some underwear or in a barbeque grill with some steaks to "test" = it. I don't think you'd find anyone in the industry that would agree = that the Collins Pro-Line system isn't safe for the King Air with just = DO-160 testing and that it really needs to be put through the garage = suite of testing instead, or even in addition to. I can't speak to why = other companies use garage-level testing - that is their business. All = I can speak to is our business. That business is avionics and we use = the proven standards established for our trade. =20 As for the Flight Op EFIS, our system has undergone and passed DO-160D = testing. This is true for both the 10.4" and the 8.4" display sizes. =20 =20 I have to close by saying that we appreciate the trust that you have = placed in us by purchasing our EFIS and MFD. As I said earlier, we = understand what we're working on every day, and just how important that = trust is. =20 =20 Dexter Turner Op Technologies (503) 690-0800 cell (503) 320-2851 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C3AD9E.C67FD410 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
For any builder that are interested in = the testing=20 of the OP200 system I have received this letter from OP.
Wally
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Dexter=20 Turner
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 7:34 PM
Subject: Testing of Flight Op EFIS

Wally,

 

I wanted to send you a = quick note to=20 reply to some questions you had about the AHRS that we use and the = environmental=20 testing that our unit has undergone. =20 As far as the AHRS goes, we ship the Crossbow AHRS 500, which has = developed a reputation that speaks for itself in the experimental = market. 

 

As far as the = environmental testing=20 goes, the only relevant testing to talk about for airplanes is = DO-160D.  The tests covered in this = document are=20 designed for the express purpose of simulating that environment that = equipment=20 installed in various locations throughout the aircraft will be subjected = to.  My company is made up = of=20 experienced avionics engineers from Honeywell, Rockwell Collins and = Boeing,=20 companies that are considered to be the finest in the world.  We have learned and practiced = the trade=20 of avionics engineering on several different certification programs and = this=20 experience has taught us the value of having industry standards such as=20 DO-160.  This experience = has also=20 taught us the level of commitment that we need to bring to the projects = we work=20 on.  Several years ago, I = was a=20 manager a project in which the program manager was fond of throwing out = the=20 question =93would you fly your family with it?=94 whenever the team was = debating a=20 design decision.  The = point he was=20 trying to instill in the minds of the team, and especially some of the = folks who=20 hadn=92t been in this field all that long, was that what we did for a = living could=20 have serious consequences for our end customers =96 the folks who flew = on the=20 airplanes with our systems installed. =20 We didn=92t design clothes dryers or personal computers; we = designed=20 avionics =96 systems which are relied on to bring our selves, or = families, our=20 friends and prefect strangers safely to their destination through rain = or shine,=20 day or night, through smooth or turbulent skies.  I even have a few other = members from=20 that team on the Op Technologies team today.  We wanted to recruit engineers = with=20 experience in avionics engineering because we wanted folks who = understood how=20 critical what they did for a living was, and who already had the strong=20 foundation in the trade that we needed to develop leading edge = products.  The engineering team we=92ve = built has=20 been contracted to help certify the WSI Inflight real-time weather = receiver,=20 which is now shipping, and to consult on the certification and develop = software=20 for the Jeppesen Electronic Flight Bag, which just certified on the = Boeing 777.=20  These customers of our = engineering=20 services recognize the experience and commitment that we bring to the = table.=20

 

Having offered a little = background=20 of the culture in my company, I will say with all certainty that we do = not=20 recognize any environmental testing other than D0-160 as relevant to our = trade.  We could strap a = system in a=20 clothes dryer and run it on permanent press for 60 minutes and call it = spin=20 testing, but as an avionics engineer, the unit spinning around with my = underwear=20 wouldn=92t tell me if this system was suitable for installation on an=20 airplane.  Running the = unit while=20 its in a meat freezer and then sticking it on a barbeque grill with the = meat=20 could be called temperature variation testing, but again, it doesn=92t = tell me=20 whether the system is suitable for installation on an airplane.  I=92ve heard about = garage-level tests like=20 this and I have a hard time believing that anyone is suggesting that = DO-160=20 testing is not adequate to simulate the conditions a piece of avionics = needs to=20 be designed for and that these garage-level tests do a better job at = modeling=20 the airplane environment.  = This=20 suggests that the Collins Pro-Line is not safe for IFR flight on a King = Air=20 until we get it in a clothes dryer with some = underwear=20 or in a barbeque grill with some steaks to =93test=94 it.  I don=92t think you=92d find = anyone in the=20 industry that would agree that the Collins Pro-Line system isn=92t safe = for the=20 King Air with just DO-160 testing and that it really needs to be put = through the=20 garage suite of testing instead, or even in addition to.  I can=92t speak to why other = companies use=20 garage-level testing =96 that is their business.  All I can speak to is our = business.  That business is avionics and = we use the=20 proven standards established for our trade.

 

As for the Flight Op EFIS, = our=20 system has undergone and passed DO-160D testing.  This is true for both the = 10.4=94 and the=20 8.4=94 display sizes. =20

 

I have to close by saying = that we=20 appreciate the trust that you have placed in us by purchasing our EFIS = and=20 MFD.  As I said earlier, = we=20 understand what we=92re working on every day, and just how important = that trust=20 is.  =

 

Dexter=20 Turner

Op=20 Technologies

(503)=20 690-0800

cell (503)=20 320-2851

 

------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C3AD9E.C67FD410--