Lowering Flaps with an iPad?

A

anandaleon

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
17
Location
Fl
Display Name
Display name:
Ani86
Hey Guys,

Check this out! First all-iPad glass cockpit driven by Levil Technology and Vertical Power... simplicity is beautiful!

Lowering Flaps with an iPad


Ananda Leon
Levil Technology
 
Last edited:
I like it! Right about 0:24 you have a great view down the chick's blouse!
 
Much to advanced for me,not crazy about using different finger combinations .
 
MAKG1 said:
Gee, what could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...

A lot.

>Battery Failure
>Touchscreen usage in bad turbulence
>Touchscreen software lock up.
>Wifi Signal Interference

At the end of the day I want a good old fashion contact switch. Don't get me wrong I love technology.

A story I was told by a NASA engineer friend was that when they were designing the new Orion capsule they had the Apollo astronauts try out the mockup. The original design was 100% touchscreen. The Apollo guys commented that they wanted to KNOW if a switch was on or off. Not some piece of software telling them it might be.
 
Looks like a good way to meet Steve Jobs.
 
What if you were in the middle of configuring your plane for landing and somebody sent you an Imessage?
 
It's cool, I wouldn't ever rely on it as my only means of control though.

Although, I bet in 10-20 years touch screen control interfaces.... tablet or otherwise are going to be pretty standard.
 
cowman said:
I bet in 10-20 years touch screen control interfaces [...] are going to be pretty standard.
Click to expand...
They have been in military cockpits for years. The engineering that goes into using software, tablet or otherwise, to move a flight control surface is not insignificant and if done thoroughly adds huge expense in terms of $ and time to control development.

Nauga,
who thinks Murphy was a flight test engineer
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Gee, what could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...

Well, seeing that neither flaps nor flight instruments are necessary to safely fly an airplane VFR, I'd say not a whole lot that's important. It's a cool concept, just not really my cup of tea. :dunno:
 
Wasn't Avidyne that used to be based on Windows NT 4?
 
matthammer said:
Well, seeing that neither flaps nor flight instruments are necessary to safely fly an airplane VFR, I'd say not a whole lot that's important. It's a cool concept, just not really my cup of tea. :dunno:
Click to expand...

You're assuming one failure mode and presuming it's the only one. Not acceptable for safety critical systems.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
You're assuming one failure mode and presuming it's the only one. Not acceptable for safety critical systems.
Click to expand...

I suppose Igor could have a field day with your flaps after he hacks the program and interfaces it with X-Plane.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I suppose Igor could have a field day with your flaps after he hacks the program and interfaces it with X-Plane.
Click to expand...

Or the pilot gets a momentary whack from turbulence, and unintentionally deploys the flaps to full without realizing it … above Vfe.
 
I predict the next leap will be a "Siri-like" interface, where the pilot can just say, "Flaps 10" or "Gear Up" or "Fly the Delta 3 Departure" or "Select Kennedy tower frequency" or "Go to the nearest airport" and these things will just happen.

Should not be very far off - the pieces are all in place.

I managed to find my way around a Garmin 430, but not without a lot of effort, and hopefully the Perspective represents the nadir in confusing, non-intuitive complexity.
 
FastEddieB said:
Envelope protection should avoid that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, at the cost of a lot of cost and complexity.

The, the envelope protection has failure modes that have to be enumerated, and all the risks mitigated.

How many of these before this "cheap" iPad costs the same as a G1000?

The biggest problem with using tablets for this purpose is the essentially infinite number of configurations the devices can have. So, you may have a few thousand in hardware (AHRS, etc.), but the software costs will be astronomical. Or unsafe.
 
FastEddieB said:
Envelope protection should avoid that sort of thing.
Click to expand...
More software and more failure modes. What happens when your airspeed transducer fails high turning final with full flaps? Something has to protect you from envelope protection. I'm not suggesting that the OP system has any of these faults. I'm also not suggesting that I trust them implicitly.

Nauga,
watering his fault tree
 
FastEddieB said:
I predict the next leap will be a "Siri-like" interface, where the pilot can just say, "Flaps 10" or "Gear Up" or "Fly the Delta 3 Departure" or "Select Kennedy tower frequency" or "Go to the nearest airport" and these things will just happen.

Should not be very far off - the pieces are all in place.

I managed to find my way around a Garmin 430, but not without a lot of effort, and hopefully the Perspective represents the nadir in confusing, non-intuitive complexity.
Click to expand...

yeah, except you have to think in Russian ...


oh wait - Apple doesn't like Firefox ... I wonder if Safari can translate?
 
nauga said:
More software and more failure modes. What happens when your airspeed transducer fails high turning final with full flaps? Something has to protect you from envelope protection. I'm not suggesting that the OP system has any of these faults. I'm also not suggesting that I trust them implicitly.

Nauga,
watering his fault tree
Click to expand...

We also mustn't forget that envelope protection -- and the loss thereof -- played a role in the crash of AF447. These are not simple algorithms!

Devices like this can become really simple on the surface and outrageously complex just under. Where they become lethal is when the operators don't know that or haven't adequately trained for it.
 
MAKG1 said:
Devices like this can become really simple on the surface and outrageously complex just under. Where they become lethal is when the operators don't know that or haven't adequately trained for it.
Click to expand...
While I don't disagree with you that's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying that without a thorough evaluation of all the different failure modes of even a relatively simple piece of code, when it's all up and running and integrated with other systems it can do things even the designer(s) never expected. I would take a very critical look at any system that can do something to my airplane that can do very real and very bad damage to my airplane if done at the wrong time.

Nauga,
hard over about hardovers
 
Touch screens in aircraft leave much to be desired, IMHO.

This past Tuesday, Mary was flying into San Antonio (Stinson Field, SSF), and it was bumpy as snot. I was the GIB, trying to get her weather and frequencies using Garmin Pilot on my touch screen Nexus 7, which was mounted in front of my face just like a back-seat control panel.

After several futile minutes, I finally had to admit that I was simply unable to do so, due to turbulence. She then used the push buttons on our Grand Rapids Horizon HXr EFIS to pull up the data, easy peasy.

I like touch screens...in my living room. I wouldn't give you a nickel for one in my airplane.
 
MAKG1 said:
Or the pilot gets a momentary whack from turbulence, and unintentionally deploys the flaps to full without realizing it … above Vfe.
Click to expand...


As if no one has ever been bounced hard enough to do the same thing with a real flap handle...

Most motorized flaps don't react that fast. Put the handle back up, slide the screen doohickey back up. No difference.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Touch screens in aircraft leave much to be desired, IMHO.



This past Tuesday, Mary was flying into San Antonio (Stinson Field, SSF), and it was bumpy as snot. I was the GIB, trying to get her weather and frequencies using Garmin Pilot on my touch screen Nexus 7, which was mounted in front of my face just like a back-seat control panel.



After several futile minutes, I finally had to admit that I was simply unable to do so, due to turbulence. She then used the push buttons on our Grand Rapids Horizon HXr EFIS to pull up the data, easy peasy.



I like touch screens...in my living room. I wouldn't give you a nickel for one in my airplane.
Click to expand...


Touch screens in bumpy environs need a different technique than poking at them. Anchor hand on bezel with fingers, touch with thumb.

Works for putting addresses into the touch screen Garmin in the Dodge 3500 diesel on a washboarded dirt road, anyway... Most of the time. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
Touch screens in bumpy environs need a different technique than poking at them. Anchor hand on bezel with fingers, touch with thumb.

Works for putting addresses into the touch screen Garmin in the Dodge 3500 diesel on a washboarded dirt road, anyway... Most of the time. ;)
Click to expand...

Tried that. Tried everything, really, including taking the tablet out of the holder and using just my thumbs, as I am typing on said tablet right now.

No joy. Every time I would touch the screen, we would get a good jounce and I would miss the airport, or it would move my thumb off the target enough to fail. (That's how you bring up weather and frequencies in Garmin Pilot -- you long-hold on the airport.)

On the EFIS, however, the data is brought up by pushing buttons. Mary was able to do this, despite the turbulence.

Don't get me wrong -- I love the touch screen, and Garmin Pilot rocks. But I would not want anything in the panel that could not be accessed by knobs. (Dynon's new touchscreen EFIS seems to combine the best of both worlds. If it's too bumpy, you can also access the data by button-mashing.)
 
Jay Honeck said:
. Every time I would touch the screen, we would get a good jounce and I would miss the airport, or it would move my thumb off the target enough to fail.
Click to expand...
That's a problem with the design of the interface, not just the fact that it's on a touch screen. I'm not a fan of touchscreens in the cockpit either, but an interface that's designed with turbulence and cockpit management in mind can be a lot better than one that isn't.

Nauga,
who loves a good tactile cue
 
I love technology. I love gadgets. I love iPads.

I would NEVER fly an airplane with any flight surfaces that could be controlled by one. Ever. iPads make a great EFB, and when connected with the proper hardware, a great weather/traffic reference and backup AHRS. They should never be used as a primary flight reference or control system. Ever. That goes well beyond the design parameters.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I love technology. I love gadgets. I love iPads.



I would NEVER fly an airplane with any flight surfaces that could be controlled by one. Ever. iPads make a great EFB, and when connected with the proper hardware, a great weather/traffic reference and backup AHRS. They should never be used as a primary flight reference or control system. Ever. That goes well beyond the design parameters.
Click to expand...


Describe the technical differences between an iPad as a user interface and the cheap touchscreen in a Garmin.

Very little difference. Probably both made in the same slave labor Foxconn facility in China.

In Garmin's case it's a cost-saving measure. Certified switches are expensive. Way cheaper to write touchscreen code.

I'm not arguing for their use. Just pointing out there's virtually no difference technically. They're both crap, I guess.
 
denverpilot said:
Describe the technical differences between an iPad as a user interface and the cheap touchscreen in a Garmin.

Very little difference. Probably both made in the same slave labor Foxconn facility in China.

In Garmin's case it's a cost-saving measure. Certified switches are expensive. Way cheaper to write touchscreen code.

I'm not arguing for their use. Just pointing out there's virtually no difference technically. They're both crap, I guess.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Standardized vs. uncontrolled configuration?

That's light years different.

I don't care much for touch screens in any moving vehicle, but at least a 530's response time can be predicted.
 
denverpilot said:
Describe the technical differences between an iPad as a user interface and the cheap touchscreen in a Garmin.
Click to expand...
As described in this thread? The iPad has control over a flight control surface that can break the airplane if used improperly. Is there a Garmin box that can deflect control surfaces to their limits? For that matter, is there a Garmin box that lets the user install any other software on it?

Nauga,
from inside the box
 
denverpilot said:
Describe the technical differences between an iPad as a user interface and the cheap touchscreen in a Garmin.

Very little difference. Probably both made in the same slave labor Foxconn facility in China.

In Garmin's case it's a cost-saving measure. Certified switches are expensive. Way cheaper to write touchscreen code.

I'm not arguing for their use. Just pointing out there's virtually no difference technically. They're both crap, I guess.
Click to expand...

First of all, none of the Garmin portables can control any flight surfaces either. And it has nothing to do with the fact that it's a touchscreen. Really, the only thing Garmin makes that can control flight surfaces is the GFC700 autopilot, which is a dedicated, integrally installed system whose design and production is certified by the FAA.

OTOH, the iPad is a portable with an operating system that will take precedence over the flight software. Time to go around... Climb it, clean it... "Bing! You have a new text from your wife! Would you like to view it?" Oh, and it's time to update your OS... Oh, guess what, the update broke your airplane!

Anything that messes with the flight controls should be a purpose-designed, purpose-built, installed device. Off-the-shelf portables should not be used for flight controls.
 
denverpilot said:
Describe the technical differences between an iPad as a user interface and the cheap touchscreen in a Garmin.

Very little difference. Probably both made in the same slave labor Foxconn facility in China.

In Garmin's case it's a cost-saving measure. Certified switches are expensive. Way cheaper to write touchscreen code.

I'm not arguing for their use. Just pointing out there's virtually no difference technically. They're both crap, I guess.
Click to expand...

You're a technical guy, there's no way you can believe this. Im watching a simple system monitoring system being built by 135 developers and tested by 3 agencies in 8 simulated planes. There's a lot more to it than angry birds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top