You also must understand there is are differences among General Aviation
(GA) aircraft, airline type aircraft, and military aircraft.
There is also a difference between instrumentation and control.
Yes, I noticed this perception among pilots. They regard the
computerization of the airplane as attaching expensive, low-volume
electronic monitoring systems to what is essentially a glorified lawn-
mower. I think part of the problem is that the monitors
(instrumentation) are becoming fancier while that which they monitor
remains antiquated.
I have a feeling that that difference will become less prevalent as
time passes. A competent electro-mechanical engineer will be far less
perturbed by the notion of fly-by-wire than the average pilot, IMO.
When qualifying the safety of such system, one has to consider exactly
who is making the qualification. Most brain surgeons are not perturbed
by the idea of having to pick pieces of metal from a persons brain,
for example, but the average person would not think of it.
Electronic instrumentation is hot for all classes of aircraft and it
is only in the past few years that the size, weight, and cost of it
has dropped to the level where it was practical to put into GA aircraft.
Ether that, or the attitudes have changed. PC's have been cheap for
quite a while, almost 20 years in my book.
Everyone wants a glass panel in the airplane these days. I've replaced
some of the "steam gauges" with electronics in my airplane and will
probably replace more as the prices drop.
This is where I find the most irony in pilots. If one mentions
electronics, etc..they shriek. Yet at the same time, they cannoy stop
talking about the latest gadget from Garmin. It's hypocritical. It's
almost as if they are saying, "yes, we want it, but we want it to come
to us in a certain way that takes into consideration that we are
pilots who have earned the right to want it this way."
If you would care to send me money, I will do it sooner.
Electronic control of flight surfaces is a separate issue.
That's part of the problem. There is no comparison between what a
computer+electro-mechanical actuator can do versus human with cables
and pulleys.
Electronic control is necessary in some cases; there isn't anyone strong
enough to fly a 747 if it didn't have active controls or anyone fast
enough to fly a high performance fighter if it didn't have stabalizing
systems.
GA aircraft, however, fly just fine with cable and pulley controls
which are cheap, simple, light, and have about a century's worth of
reliability data.
They fly just fine *if* the goal is to not change anything. But it is
still impractical for the average consumer to buy and fly an airplane.
Eventually, something will happen where such consumers can
participate. When that happens, naturally, the aircraft will problably
not be constructed like a C182.
There is no practical reason to put electronic controls in GA aircraft
and a lot of practical reasons not to.
????
I can think of many reasons.
This does not include autopilots which have been in GA aircraft for about
a half century now.
Autopilots driving 75-year-old technology. It's the equivalent of
using a PC to control a lawn-mower with flaps.
That leaves us with engine control.
The reality here is that Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC)
has been around for quite a while for the big airplanes and is just now
starting to show up for GA aircraft. Once again it is a size, weight and
cost issue.
All of these problems start with an unnecessary presumption: "The
basic system model of the aircraft will be the same as it has been for
75 years." I think make this presumption makes the argument moot. I
would prefer to start anew with the objective in mind, without
consideration for the status quo, then ask whether it is feasible to
meet those objective if one did not have to accommodate the status
quo. If the answer is "maybe", then we proceed. If it is "no", then we
abort. But you limit the possibiities immediately when you say, "Oh,
by the way, it will need cables and pulleys and lots of metal."
And yes, a "computer" that goes in an airplane costs a hell of a lot
more than a laptop at Best Buy.
I would use a standard $500 PC, in experimentaal aircraft, to prove at
least that it could be done.
The fact that the airplane "computer" has to be proven to be reliable
and that the market for such "computers" is tiny has a lot to do with
that.
Circuitous. Yes, FAA requires approval. But for non-critical items do
not require approval. For example, if I want to take my iPod aboard, I
do not need FAA approval. If I make a mount in the aircraft that can
hold my iPod, how much will that cost?
The industry itself has created this situation. Let's face it -
owning an aircraft is not just a matter of cost, it's a matter of
convenience. The antiquated technology is a big part of the
inconvenience. The propeller alone is a problem. It's dangerous.
The guarantee on the Best Buy laptop is that if bursts into flames on
you they will give you a new one and any one store probably sells
many times more in a year than the total number of GA aircraft made.
Is that the sort of guarantee you would fly with?
It's a risk/reward ratio. A lot of problems with computers are
software-related. The hardware is not perfect, but for what it does,
it does well. The computer I am using to type this message has been
running 24x7 for over a year, without any cleaning. The CPU "machine"
does it's job 2.4 billion times a second and does not require an oil
change. Ever. These devices, if properly employed in redundant
configuration, can offer far more benefit than detriment.
The bottom line is that all the technological stuff that is appropriate
for GA aircraft *IS* already going into GA aircraft.
A century from now, there will be a PAV that would be far beyond what
we are discussing now.
And there will be some pilot somewhere, uttering those words.
"The way it is is the way it should be and will be."
And then another 100 years will pass.
Change is inevitable, and if history is any indication, it _will_
happen that a PAV will be composed of ultra-advanced technology. The
idea that computers and electro-mechanical actuators are not employed
will be absurd.
The key question we should be asking ourselves today is whether it has
not happened because the technology is not available, or because of
the intransigence of those most closely associated with the industry.
-Le Chaud Lapin-