On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:43:47 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
Kinda like designing an automobile without knowing how to drive? I'm
not sure I would like that kind of auto. It would probably look like
a Star Trek walking machine.
Idea I have in mind would look somewhat futuristic. Only thing I can
say right now is that, at first sight, it will be really hard to find
or hear the propeller.
Actually, I once had someone of a similar idea. I bought part
interest in an avionics shop. We were considered opening a branch
shop at the local airport with me as the tech. The problem is that I
don't fly but can repair avionics, computahs, some instruments, etc. A
little marketing research (asking stupid questions of various pilots)
convinced me that nobody would trust their airplanes to someone that
doesn't have a pilots license and doesn't fly. That should give you a
clue for your upcoming credibility challenge.
Well, I will be licensed pilot in few months. I'm a student pilot now.
From what I have learned so far, flying is mostly a mental activity,
which might explain some of the attitudes I have observed in flight
school lounges and online. Motorcyle riding, on other hand, at 125+
mph, sustained, requires a bit more skill. I know a lot of pilots who
would not think of trying that. And though I will be licensed, in
retrospect, it is not necessary to have a pilot's license to make a
well-designed aircraft. There are plenty of people who design machines
of high quality that they themselves have never operated, no ever
will.
Yep. The same applies to any industry where safety is more important
than functionality. You'll find a similar situation in military,
medical, nuclear, and some industrial electronics. If you want it to
just work, it's cheap. If you want it totally reliable, tested,
blessed, and as near perfect as humanly possible, you gotta pay the
price.
But if you decompose these devices, often the parts are COTS. There
was a big push in the late 1960's/1970's for example, to use COTS
components. The military, in fact, was one of the biggest proponents.
They realized that, while safety is important, the doomsaying was out
of line with reality.
I can see you've never hung out in the lounge at an airport. All you
hear are pilots complaining about this and that. The FAA is a
favorite target, although various revenue collecting (tax) agencies
are a close second. There's also the traditional $100 hamburger:
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100_Hamburger>
Oh I have. The pilot's do complain. But I think their complaints are
biased [in favor of pilots of course]. The FAA is actively
encouraging the development of Personal Air Vehicle, for example,
which has been openly ridiculed multiple times in discussions I had in
one such lounge. Part of the problem is that pilots come from all
walks of life. Many of them are not engineers or scientists, and only
retain basic knowledge of physics, or whatever. Anything that is out
of their realm of knowledge, they tend to reject. One day, it was so
bad, that owner of the pilot school I was at interrupted them to tell
them I was right about a choice of metal that should be used for sub-
structure. Obstinate would be gross understatment when
characterizing some of these pilots. The owner, however, _did_ have
strong understanding of physics.
Incidentally, a typical Dave Clark headset retails for about $250. If
you want noise canceling, about $650. The new X11 ENC ANR is about
$750. There are cheaper brands with headsets for about $125.
Figure on $60/hr for a Cessna 172 dry, plus about 10 gallons per hour
for fuel at about $6/gal. So, a 2 hr joy ride will cost $240 or the
cost of a headset. Play with your computer flight simulator for a
day, instead of flying, and you've paid for the headset.
Yes, it's a cycle, but I'm sorry. I cannot blame the FAA. Part of it
is that aviation itself is simply not advanced enough to allow Grandma
to take a quick trip cross-country. Low-volume means higher prices,
etc. This is not the FAA's fault. They are doing what they can
[actively asking scientist and engineers to improve the technology].
$10,000 is cheap for a complete EFIS or glass cockpit control and MFD
display system. However, if you're flying a mult-million dollar
business jet, it's just spare change. As far as I know, you can't
legally install a general purpose computah in an airplane. The RFI
would cause havoc to the much of the RF based navigation. I suppose a
Tempest qualified laptop might be approved. Incidentally, most small
aircraft run on 24VDC, which adds a small obstacle to OTS products.
You can if it's experimental. Many people have done it. So yes, there
are people who are trying to do better. But the problem still exists.
What often happens is that someone will take an existing $100,000
plane, and add a $1000 general purpose PC. So the total cost is
$101,000. Still too much. A systemic approach is necessary, and the
FAA, with their various experimental support programs, has said,
"Look...we do want you to be safe, but we do not want to impede
innovation. If you think you can make an ultra-advanced aircraft with
ultra-advanced controls, hydraulics, electronics, software, for
$50,000 show us. No we not let you fly it over Manhattan, but if you
prove that you can do it, we will grease the path as best as we
reasonably can for certification."
The problem is that no one is doing it. Only incremental ($100,000 +
$1,0000 = $101,000) designs are being pursued.
The retro aviation crowd doesn't worry me (much). It's the yuppies
with more money than good sense or patience that worry me. They LOVE
gadgets in their airplanes. The more gizmos, the better. Too bad
they don't spend the time to learn how to use them. I just hate
trying to collect from the pilots estate after he trashes the plane
because he was too busy fiddling with the knobs and gadgets instead of
paying attention to the surroundings and instruments.
Hmmm...
One of the key criteria of the FAA's advanced experimental aircraft
programs is that future pilots, old-and-scruffy or polished-and-yuppie
will not look outside the plane at all. Instead they will use
virtual, networked cockpits with markups of simulated everything as
the way of the future [something you might know a thing or two about].
This is why I have a hard time believing that the FAA is the culprit
for slow progress of innovation. They are doing as much as a
government organization with their responsibility can be reasonably
expected to do in this area.
-Le Chaud Lapin-