| Jon: with respect to your experience (I am just a user without your industry experience), I don't see the link between higher standards and extended longevity/reliability in the airplane. I think it is a great exercise to put these units through the paces and identify weaknesses in a design but I propose as an argument that the higher standard for testing does not translate into a more reliable unit or a longer lasting unit in actual use in the airplane.
I believe the consumer drives a good product into success or allows a bad product to die. My personal experience is that [DO 160] units fail as much or more than any consumer device I've owned in the cockpit (Macbook, ipad, iphone, palmpad, HP-pad, DELL8100/8300, Fujitsu x 3 versions). All of my consumer devices worked in the planes I flew and provided XM, Wxworx, charts, Flitestar or moving maps and yet my DO 160 devices (Transponder, radar, MFD, PFD, radAlt) have failed in multiple aircraft with multiple manufacturers and are really expensive to revive. Are Chelton units still getting sent back to Texas with internal failures? Which is the better value, which has better reliability and which can get back flying in less time with fewer costs? Did testing really provide pilots with a benefit? I'm not convinced it did.
In your KX 155 example, did that excellent durability come from the standards imposed by testing (your DO160 reference) or were these radios just built really well to begin with by Mr. King and successors?
Fortunately, in experimental aircraft we can choose whether to populate the space with almost any box we want. I'm suggesting that the best indicator of usefulness in flight is not the box that gets dunked in water and fire and still works in the lab. It is the box that delivers the information you need to fly, has good value, can be replaced or repaired without sacrificing budgets and is easily duplicated for backups. Garmin brought us panel mounted units with increased utility. Then it brought us portable units (G696) with a hefty price point but more utility. Then Apple stumbled into the cockpit by allowing open access to iOS developers and the price point dropped and the amount of useable information in the cockpit per dollar jumped In my book by a factor of 100 from just a few years ago.
The panel cracks are beginning to show. Shadin now has a "certified" data port to the ipad for distributing ARINC 429 info. How long will it be before I take my consumer aviation "box" home to program the flight then plug it into the Legacy panel and have it fly the route to destination with all the latest data, AHARS, including roll steering commands to the Tru-Trak? Only it might cost me $300 instead of $20,000. Will it be an iPad or something morphed by Garmin or someone else? I bet it will happen.
Even though the certified boxes do fail, they are tested to a much higher standard (DO 160) than the mass produced portable products. In the long run , the certified box might outlast the mass produced product. How many KX 155's are out there still providing reliable service?
Even though the FAA has allowed the use of the mass produced product in the cockpit of the airlines, I'm pretty sure it's in an advisory capacity only, ie charts. The primary flight displays and maps are still the tried and true FAA certified avionics.
--
Jon Hadlich
AI Systems
(541) 815-7381
|