Where's the Glideslope

[luvflyin]

I was raised on CDI's with needles. If the needle was up there I needed to fly up to it. If down there, fly down to it. What could be easier. Now there's HSI's and digital HSI thingies that have symbols, dots/triangles/diamonds off to the side representing the Glidslope. When first starting using them I caught myself flying the wrong way. Like my brain processed the 'symbol' to be me. I got over it. But after over a year off from flying I was flying a GTN simulator and sure as sheet I did it again, got under the glideslope, but my brain processed it as that was me up there and flew down to get it. Anyone else who made the transition from needles to dots experince this? CFI's, have you seen it?

 

[denverpilot]

Most digital HSIs have a CDI mode or a needles mode that can be selected. What digital HSI are you using?

 

[chemgeek]

When I installed the G5s, the diamond indicators seemed natural to me. I do like the rectilinear needles of the old-fashioned mechanical display, however. Where they cross is where you want to be, relatively speaking. The crossed needle display seems like one point to keep track of, whereas a G5 dot display is two points to keep track of, one for each axis. But it's all good. Having everything in front of you in one or two central displays is much easier to scan than a separate CDI well away from your central scan.

 

[luvflyin]

Most digital HSIs have a CDI mode or a needles mode that can be selected. What digital HSI are you using?

Right now the one in the GTN trainer. It's got one 'tape' to the right side with a diamond. The first one years back was a KCS55, that's analog. It was in my plane. I've flown others, I think a century one. Not sure yet what the planes I'll be flying have.

 

[luvflyin]

When I installed the G5s, the diamond indicators seemed natural to me. I do like the rectilinear needles of the old-fashioned mechanical display, however. Where they cross is where you want to be, relatively speaking. The crossed needle display seems like one point to keep track of, whereas a G5 dot display is two points to keep track of, one for each axis. But it's all good. Having everything in front of you in one or two central displays is much easier to scan than a separate CDI well away from your central scan.

Yeah. I actually liked the even older non rectilinear ones better on the CDI's. But that ain't gonna work with an HSI.

 

[jordane93]

Just takes a little getting used to all the information in a centralized location. You’ll be comfortable after a few hours.

 

[denverpilot]

I thought the G5 had a standard HSI mode if desired. Haven’t played with one in a long long time though.

Not sure what to say about the “GTN trainer”. The GTN isn’t a display.

So I’m guessing it’s a trainer showing something like a G5?

It’s too bad if Big G decided to not offer multiple ways to display the data. But the trend toward making it all look like newer airliners is definitely a thing.

Agreed that crosshairs is an excellent way to represent an ILS overall, preferred if you ask me, but the side dot trend goes way back in airliner stuff to even their old mechanical indicators.

Tapes also have some specific limitations as to how humans sense changes occurring. A needle making a curve is more noticeable to peripheral vision, but the tape isn’t really off to the side so ...

The biggest problem with tapes are hidden (off the top or bottom) or just unused bugs. Various displays have tricks to show a bug is off-scale nowadays usually.

I suppose the biggest problem is finding trainers and software that match what you’re going to fly. Proficiency in whatever that is, is what’ll be important.

Luckily the biggest rule still applies. Make anything moving, stop moving. Unless you want it moving.

 

[dmspilot]

Photo or screenshot? I'm having trouble visualizing what the issue is.

 

[jordane93]

Photo or screenshot? I'm having trouble visualizing what the issue is.

I assume the OP means something like this

Vs

 

[Hang 4]

On the "tape with a diamond", I find it easiest to think "fly to magenta" (or green if a nav source). So if the diamond is above the center of the tape, I need to fly "up" to it and vice versa. Works the same for horizontal.

 

[Geosync]

After you hit the CDI button to activate the approach, your course(localizer)should go green, and reads like a mechanical HSI. Glidescope will be the green dot on the right.

But don’t track it on the EFIS, track it on the DG/HSI. If you have just one G5 EFIS and not the second(dual)DG/HSI, then stick with the mechanical HSI for the approach. EFIS is way too busy in my opinion.

 

[luvflyin]

I assume the OP means something like this

Vs

What unit is that? Is the short yellow line the Glideslope? That wouldn't have played the 'is that dot me' trick on me. Ref your post #6 above. Yeah I got it almost right away when it first happened to me. It did get me again for a second after a year off and flying a simulator with a display I hadn't used before. I'm not at all worried about something dumb in actual flight. Just wondering if anyone else ever experienced this or CFI's have seen it.

 

[denverpilot]

What unit is that? Is the short yellow line the Glideslope?

The purple diamond is the glide slope. It’ll move above or below that line. The dots are like the older instrument, how many dots off you are.

 

[denverpilot]

Same deal with the localizer at the bottom.

 

[luvflyin]

The purple diamond is the glide slope. It’ll move above or below that line. The dots are like the older instrument, how many dots off you are.

I shouldn't have said dot. By dot I meant the symbol that represents the Glideslope. On that one it looks to be a hollow purple diamond. On the G600 trainer, which loads up with GTN650, its a solid green diamond. If that horizontal yellow line moved up and down, as the Glideslope needle moves up and down on a conventional CDI, there wouldn't be that 'illusion' I fell for. Guess I had just got kinda use to me being the symbol. Like on map applications, I'm the blue dot.

 

[Hang 4]

I shouldn't have said dot. By dot I meant the symbol that represents the Glideslope. On that one it looks to be a hollow purple diamond. On the G600 trainer, which loads up with GTN650, its a solid green diamond.

On the G600, green means Nav is the source (e.g. ILS) and purple (think you meant Magenta) means GPS is the source. In either case, you want to "chase the diamond". Meaning if it's above the center line of the tape, you are low and need to add power. If the diamond is low, you're above the glideslope. I struggled with the logic until I got to think this way. Worked for me, YMMV.

 

[denverpilot]

I shouldn't have said dot. By dot I meant the symbol that represents the Glideslope. On that one it looks to be a hollow purple diamond. On the G600 trainer, which loads up with GTN650, its a solid green diamond. If that horizontal yellow line moved up and down, as the Glideslope needle moves up and down on a conventional CDI, there wouldn't be that 'illusion' I fell for. Guess I had just got kinda use to me being the symbol. Like on map applications, I'm the blue dot.

Yup I get it. Eyeballs are looking for a needle/line and see the yellow line and brain assumes that’s going to move.

It would be an easy trap for folks with lots of hours looking at needles/lines.

User decades old brain habits are rarely taken into account with new formats to display info in user interfaces. Just some young engineer who thinks the new thing looks good.

In the case of the moving tape Glideslope and Localizer I believe there’s some military history there also. Different world. Big gyro ball in the center when it was mechanical that wouldn’t tumble, and the rest of the stuff had to be centered in view between legs but off to the sides.

It’s a “relatively” new depiction for the GA light aircraft world though.

Took a long time but someone coding a display that could literally show anything — like why not use the boxes in the sky toward the runway visuals that have proven nearly infallible to humans attempting to interpret them, even non-pilots get those — ended up with old airliner and military depictions.

There’s really no reason for any of the difficult to interpret instrument depictions on a digital display. Just put a freaking flashing arrow on it pointing UP if the aircraft gets too low, etc.

Zero imagination on the part of the avionics display folk.

Synthetic vision with the ancient instrument like depictions overlaid is newest but keeps the old needles. “Highway in the sky” or the “fly through the boxes” adaptations are probably the most useful new formats seen thus far.

Probably some stupid certification rules forcing old style display depictions also, I would guess.

Seems unnecessarily difficult. Why depict things as if we are stuck with mechanical instruments on a digital display? That just requires multiple levels of interpretation that the computer could have already figured out and displayed in a new and better way.

We have weird ways of holding on to the past in aviation. The digital panel really doesn’t need to look like a museum piece. But it often does.

 

[luvflyin]

Same deal with the localizer at the bottom.

Yeah. There's these different ways of displaying it. Like the on the GTN650 NAV page, you are the symbol, a triangle, and the LOC/Radial is a line(like a needle.) On other things, like the one above in post #8, you are the 'line' and the LOC/radial is the symbol.

 

[luvflyin]

Yup I get it. Eyeballs are looking for a needle/line and see the yellow line and brain assumes that’s going to move.

It would be an easy trap for folks with lots of hours looking at needles/lines.

User decades old brain habits are rarely taken into account with new formats to display info in user interfaces. Just some young engineer who thinks the new thing looks good.

In the case of the moving tape Glideslope and Localizer I believe there’s some military history there also. Different world. Big gyro ball in the center when it was mechanical that wouldn’t tumble, and the rest of the stuff had to be centered in view between legs but off to the sides.

It’s a “relatively” new depiction for the GA light aircraft world though.

Took a long time but someone coding a display that could literally show anything — like why not use the boxes in the sky toward the runway visuals that have proven nearly infallible to humans attempting to interpret them, even non-pilots get those — ended up with old airliner and military depictions.

There’s really no reason for any of the difficult to interpret instrument depictions on a digital display. Just put a freaking flashing arrow on it pointing UP if the aircraft gets too low, etc.

Zero imagination on the part of the avionics display folk.

Synthetic vision with the ancient instrument like depictions overlaid is newest but keeps the old needles. “Highway in the sky” or the “fly through the boxes” adaptations are probably the most useful new formats seen thus far.

Probably some stupid certification rules forcing old style display depictions also, I would guess.

Seems unnecessarily difficult. Why depict things as if we are stuck with mechanical instruments on a digital display? That just requires multiple levels of interpretation that the computer could have already figured out and displayed in a new and better way.

We have weird ways of holding on to the past in aviation. The digital panel really doesn’t need to look like a museum piece. But it often does.

Exactly. See above

 

[luvflyin]

On the G600, green means Nav is the source (e.g. ILS) and purple (think you meant Magenta) means GPS is the source. In either case, you want to "chase the diamond". Meaning if it's above the center line of the tape, you are low and need to add power. If the diamond is low, you're above the glideslope. I struggled with the logic until I got to think this way. Worked for me, YMMV.

Yeah. I didn't notice that about the colors. When i was flying it(sim) it was an ILS so I was in VLOC. Like @denverpilot and I were talking about, it's habits about you percieve things. Thanks for checking in that it was a thing to you to. I'm getting use to 'chasing the diamond' without thinking I'm a dog chasing my own tail.

 

[IK04]

One of the few advantages of a Vertical Situation Display separate from a Horizontal Situation Display is that you can separate the glidepath (glideslope included) information from the heading, track and course information.

That usually is seen as a welcomed part of the transition to glass cockpit displays and the new guy adapts to it very well if it is explained that way.

I can't think of anyone I have trained who went back to looking at the HSD/HDI for the vertical information found in that little diamond with the dots. Yeah, a few have gotten it backwards, but they were backward with a mechanical HSI, too!

The concept of a flight instrument scan kinda disappears, which allows the pilot to scan other displays, like a moving map or a performance/powerplant (ICAS).

 

[denverpilot]

The concept of a flight instrument scan kinda disappears, which allows the pilot to scan other displays, like a moving map or a performance/powerplant (ICAS).

That’s the stupid part about these displays. Just put the map on there too, and pop the engine instruments if they’re out of range... of course keep those also off to the side for performance stuff, but honestly even that could be part of the calculation on the single screen, just tell the pilot what to set at transitions based on predicted performance even if the engine stuff isn’t integrated...

With good software the entire depiction could be less reminiscent of 1970 with color bling added, and completely usable by nearly anybody who looked at it.

Trying to make digital displays look like old radios is dumb. The concept of a scan at all with a well designed digital display is also dumb.

But we pilots definitely like dumb. Ha.

 

[flyingron]

The purple diamond is the glide slope. It’ll move above or below that line. The dots are like the older instrument, how many dots off you are.

Much like the mechanical HSI (which has a yellow pointer that slides up and down on the side of the unit.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That’s the stupid part about these displays. Just put the map on there too

Yup... And that's what Garmin has done:

That's the "HSI Map" depiction on a GI 275 HSI. That view is also available on the HSI portion of the G500 TXi and G1000 NXi (and probably others).

 

[denverpilot]

Yup... And that's what Garmin has done:

That's the "HSI Map" depiction on a GI 275 HSI. That view is also available on the HSI portion of the G500 TXi and G1000 NXi (and probably others).

Yeah those are better.

I’m gonna feel like Henning here for a sec, but 3D with the terrain and synthetic vision style with guidance for the ILS depicted as a pathway would still be better than that.

And certainly doable on any digital display.

Mashing a map and depictions of old mechanical instruments into one display is just incremental.

Should just jump to the natural end of the display design outcome, once user interface design is actually thought through. No fake needles required other than to placate us old people.

Not on the primary display anyway.

Follow the sky boxes and don’t hit the brown bumps is pretty much the best possible display depiction for anything that can display whatever the programmer wants. That’s all I’m sayin’.

Fake needles just add an unnecessary interpretation step that the computer can accomplish that was only necessary when we were stuck with mechanical instrument limitations.

 

[jrcox19]

Yeah those are better.

I’m gonna feel like Henning here for a sec, but 3D with the terrain and synthetic vision style with guidance for the ILS depicted as a pathway would still be better than that.

And certainly doable on any digital display.

Mashing a map and depictions of old mechanical instruments into one display is just incremental.

Should just jump to the natural end of the display design outcome, once user interface design is actually thought through. No fake needles required other than to placate us old people.

Not on the primary display anyway.

Follow the sky boxes and don’t hit the brown bumps is pretty much the best possible display depiction for anything that can display whatever the programmer wants. That’s all I’m sayin’.

Fake needles just add an unnecessary interpretation step that the computer can accomplish that was only necessary when we were stuck with mechanical instrument limitations.

Like always, you need to convince the FAA of that. Not the manufacturers

 

[asicer]

I’m gonna feel like Henning here for a sec, but 3D with the terrain and synthetic vision style with guidance for the ILS depicted as a pathway would still be better than that.

Needles + SynVis + Highway-in-the-Sky? May as well add FD bars and FPM to that list as well...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Yeah those are better.

I’m gonna feel like Henning here for a sec, but 3D with the terrain and synthetic vision style with guidance for the ILS depicted as a pathway would still be better than that.

And certainly doable on any digital display.

Mashing a map and depictions of old mechanical instruments into one display is just incremental.

Should just jump to the natural end of the display design outcome, once user interface design is actually thought through. No fake needles required other than to placate us old people.

Not on the primary display anyway.

Follow the sky boxes and don’t hit the brown bumps is pretty much the best possible display depiction for anything that can display whatever the programmer wants. That’s all I’m sayin’.

Fake needles just add an unnecessary interpretation step that the computer can accomplish that was only necessary when we were stuck with mechanical instrument limitations.

Try to keep up, man!

Not the greatest representation because the pilot is well off course, but you can see the purple boxes he's supposed to be flying through over on the left. But this sounds like it exactly fits what you're wanting, along with some instruments and tapes for us old guys. Garmin G3X Touch, BTW.

 

[Boone]

I assume the OP means something like this

Vs

Why is the guidance magenta when the source is green? I don’t know what this was pulled from but I thought those would match here.

 

[asicer]

Try to keep up, man!

Not the greatest representation because the pilot is well off course, but you can see the purple boxes he's supposed to be flying through over on the left. But this sounds like it exactly fits what you're wanting, along with some instruments and tapes for us old guys. Garmin G3X Touch, BTW.

Frankly, I find it much easier to plant the yellow triangle on the FD bars than it is to follow the highway-in-the-sky boxes.

 

[Sierra_Hotel]

Try to keep up, man!

Not the greatest representation because the pilot is well off course, but you can see the purple boxes he's supposed to be flying through over on the left. But this sounds like it exactly fits what you're wanting, along with some instruments and tapes for us old guys. Garmin G3X Touch, BTW.

Oh my

 

[luvflyin]

Try to keep up, man!

Not the greatest representation because the pilot is well off course, but you can see the purple boxes he's supposed to be flying through over on the left. But this sounds like it exactly fits what you're wanting, along with some instruments and tapes for us old guys. Garmin G3X Touch, BTW.

That’s givin me a cravin fer watermelon

 

[jordane93]

Why is the guidance magenta when the source is green? I don’t know what this was pulled from but I thought those would match here.

I don’t know, I just pulled some random picture from google images. I don’t think the green flight director is indicative of ground based or GPS based navigation.

 

[denverpilot]

Try to keep up, man!

Not the greatest representation because the pilot is well off course, but you can see the purple boxes he's supposed to be flying through over on the left. But this sounds like it exactly fits what you're wanting, along with some instruments and tapes for us old guys. Garmin G3X Touch, BTW.

Looks like my post last night got stuck as a draft and I accidentally deleted it.

Summary was, I’m plenty kept up. G3X ain’t new.

A $35K panel retrofit (or higher) for the small GA fleet isn’t fiscally sound. That it’s “available” doesn’t really change my commentary about how the smaller affordable devices depict the data they’re fed.

It’s a screen. It can display anything.

The really sad part is that a small company writing software for a consumer grade tablet OS has proven they can make a better aviation UI for roughly $100 a year for over a decade now.

That’s embarrassing for the panel mount developers, if you really think about it.

The hardware and displays themselves are even more embarrassing. My phone has higher resolution. The two 28” 4K monitors on my desk cost $450 for the pair. Laptops with outdoor viewable high nits direct-sunlight capable 4K color calibrated screens sell for $500, meaning the display is roughly $100 wholesale.

Aviation panel tech is hideously stuck in the past. Old displays showing pictures of 50s-70s instruments unless you cough up the price of the entire airframe for mediocre displays with graphics ideas first flown by NASA on the Shuttle in the 80s. (Albeit without color, but the depiction methodology of flight path is decades old now.)

Ancient stuff. Mostly driven by nostalgia amongst the industry and regulators apparently. No real reason to draw needles on a graphics display.

(Of course there is another reason. Doing anything other than depicting ancient needles on the affordable displays, which is just a software change, means the expensive line art mediocre displays that come for $20K more, won’t sell. It ain’t regulatory stuff that’s blocking it, if both are for sale...)

Granted, having your butt kicked in UI/UX by a tablet app maker, isn’t as embarrassing as paying $3M in ransomware costs because you let malicious code into your entire production server farm... LOL.

The kids have games now with 60GB of photo-realistic graphics for $50. It’s hilarious to see the aviation presss ooooh and ahhhh over colored line art. Nobody in the real tech world is impressed by anything offered at a sane price in a panel display.

Most aviation UIs would win awards for “most vintage looking software” if we were handing out such awards. LOL.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Looks like my post last night got stuck as a draft and I accidentally deleted it.

Well, let me summarize for the tl;dr crowd: "Blah, blah, blah, I don't care that they're already doing all the stuff I said they should do in my last post, they still suck, blah blah, bah humbug!"

Did I get that right?

Summary was, I’m plenty kept up. G3X ain’t new.

Correct - It's several years old already. Introduced April 2014.

A $35K panel retrofit (or higher) for the small GA fleet isn’t fiscally sound. That it’s “available” doesn’t really change my commentary about how the smaller affordable devices depict the data they’re fed.

Who said anything about fiscally sound? And it ain't $35K. Maybe half that including installation for the big screen. It's the fact that most people are installing that, plus additional displays, plus engine monitors, plus new autopilots, plus why don't we throw in a newer GPS and a bluetooth audio panel while we're in there...

I mean, c'mon. My "ADS-B upgrade" cost $42,000. "Sorry honey, it's required..."

The really sad part is that a small company writing software for a consumer grade tablet OS has proven they can make a better aviation UI for roughly $100 a year for over a decade now.

You know I love ForeFlight, but there's no way in hell I'd trust my life to it.

Yes, they can make software.

No, they can't make hardware for that cost. They can't make certified software for that cost. The FAA will accept that it is, in fact, better than a piece of paper, but that's all. Period.

Comparing an EFB running on a tablet to panel-mount avionics is like comparing apples and tennis balls. They may look similar, but they are quite different...

That’s embarrassing for the panel mount developers, if you really think about it.

Not really. I bet Garmin would be happy to, if the FAA allowed it, sell you the software for your avionics for $100/year and the hardware for $1500... And then sell you the software certification paperwork for $15,000. I mean, look at the difference in price between the experimental and certified versions of the same things. The certified stuff costs a multiple of the experimental stuff that's running the same hardware and better software.

The hardware and displays themselves are even more embarrassing. My phone has higher resolution. The two 28” 4K monitors on my desk cost $450 for the pair. Laptops with outdoor viewable high nits direct-sunlight capable 4K color calibrated screens sell for $500, meaning the display is roughly $100 wholesale.

And is of total **** quality. There are 20-plus-year-old Garmin 430s that still work like brand new and they've been exposed to extreme temperatures and quick temperature changes and vibration and all kinds of other stuff for 20+ years! Screw that laptop display into your plane's panel and see how long it lasts. I give it a year. Maybe two.

Aviation panel tech is hideously stuck in the past. Old displays showing pictures of 50s-70s instruments unless you cough up the price of the entire airframe for mediocre displays with graphics ideas first flown by NASA on the Shuttle in the 80s. (Albeit without color, but the depiction methodology of flight path is decades old now.)

You know how much NASA paid for that?

Also, my GI 275 can do everything you've asked for so far except the highway-in-the-sky depiction, and it cost a tiny fraction of the airframe. Nobody is spending "the price of the entire airframe" on avionics.

Ancient stuff. Mostly driven by nostalgia amongst the industry and regulators apparently. No real reason to draw needles on a graphics display.

Sure there is. Zoom out on your fancy map, and you could be many miles off course without being able to tell. Keeping the needles available gives you a consistent display of how far off course you are.

Most aviation UIs would win awards for “most vintage looking software” if we were handing out such awards. LOL.

Some manufacturers which I won't bother naming, you're certainly correct. Garmin, OTOH, does continue to make their UIs look better and more modern as time goes on. The difference between the original G1000 and the G1000 NXi, for example, is quite striking when you actually fly them (We have 2x original and 1 NXi at the moment so I switch back and forth all the time). I would say the same for the GI 275 vs the G5.

The difference between aviation and the rest of the world is, nobody is still using their 1999 PowerBook. Computers tend to be replaced FAR more often than avionics, and avionics don't force you to update every freaking Tuesday before you can shut your airplane off so they're often running fairly ancient software.

 

[denverpilot]

Well, let me summarize for the tl;dr crowd: "Blah, blah, blah, I don't care that they're already doing all the stuff I said they should do in my last post, they still suck, blah blah, bah humbug!"

Did I get that right?

No, that’s not what I said and you’re just being an ass for no reason. As usual I’ve made no personal attacks and you have. Congrats again.

I said they should do it on all products and specifically the G5 we were all discussing and its ancient depiction of instrument needles.

I didn’t say the overpriced G3X wasn’t available.

Remember this started with essentially... “Why is this weird diamond thing and a tape doing strange things compared to needles?”

“Because both are hideously outdated ways to depict something on a graphical display.“

Not really. I bet Garmin would be happy to, if the FAA allowed it, sell you the software for your avionics for $100/year and the hardware for $1500... And then sell you the software certification paperwork for $15,000. I mean, look at the difference in price between the experimental and certified versions of the same things. The certified stuff costs a multiple of the experimental stuff that's running the same hardware and better software.

The only evidence the certification actually costs roughly double is the manufacturer saying so. FAA is silent on it, and technically couldn’t confirm or deny it even if asked.

There’s no third party to confirm. Numbers aren’t public.

Whether the cost is really there or the certified just have a higher profit margin, isn’t really known. It’s assumed.

Pilots THINK it’s a real doubling in costs to certify, and it’s cultural now to say so, but there’s nobody doing teardowns to look for hardware differences inside like we do see in nearly every other aspect of tech these days.

(Not that the aviation press would even know how.)

Also... who says FAA doesn’t allow the model you gave above? They don’t care how you price those things as long as an avionics tech installs them.

I mean it probably would confuse the hell out of them and break their brains, but there’s nothing that says it isn’t allowed. ;-)

And is of total **** quality. There are 20-plus-year-old Garmin 430s that still work like brand new and they've been exposed to extreme temperatures and quick temperature changes and vibration and all kinds of other stuff for 20+ years! Screw that laptop display into your plane's panel and see how long it lasts. I give it a year. Maybe two.

Garmin’s displays are coming out of the same building in China. Again would bet big money.

Yes, they’d pay about $300 to have that display have a touch screen added and a shake and bake test. You missed the bigger picture again.

If a laptop display of “bad quality” (they’re not, by the way — corporate laptop users are way harder on devices than any panel vibration ever will be) is $100 wholesale — and multiple generations better than what G is selling — they’re capable of getting a panel that meets their requirements for absolutely no more than $300.

Probably are.

That doesn’t justify a five figure sales price.

You know how much NASA paid for that?

Doesn’t matter. Copying it on modern hardware is nearly free. They already did it in fact. G3X. Right? Code is done. Certified even. Port it.

Again it was just the point that these graphical depictions aren’t in any way new.

Put em in the G5.

Put em on the GTN screen.

Put em in an even cheaper display, not yet released.

Also, my GI 275 can do everything you've asked for so far except the highway-in-the-sky depiction, and it cost a tiny fraction of the airframe. Nobody is spending "the price of the entire airframe" on avionics.

And the discussion was specifically about the graphical depiction of an ILS needles.

So ... it doesn’t do it.

LOL.

Put em in the GI 275!

Sure there is. Zoom out on your fancy map, and you could be many miles off course without being able to tell. Keeping the needles available gives you a consistent display of how far off course you are.

It has nothing to do with the choice to depict needles. Lots of ways to display how far off course. Already some in text boxes on every G product even.

Some manufacturers which I won't bother naming, you're certainly correct. Garmin, OTOH, does continue to make their UIs look better and more modern as time goes on. The difference between the original G1000 and the G1000 NXi, for example, is quite striking when you actually fly them (We have 2x original and 1 NXi at the moment so I switch back and forth all the time). I would say the same for the GI 275 vs the G5.

Already stipulated. The aviation world is so old we spooge hard over what are ancient upgrades everywhere else. G was used as the BEST example. Others are even worse.

Of course a G looks wildly awesome compared to those. Ooh ooh color TN LCD panel vector graphics. Ooh! LOL.

Bleh.

The difference between aviation and the rest of the world is, nobody is still using their 1999 PowerBook. Computers tend to be replaced FAR more often than avionics, and avionics don't force you to update every freaking Tuesday before you can shut your airplane off so they're often running fairly ancient software.

The G5 wasn’t released in 1999. It’s depictions of radios and mechanical gadgets hooked to radios was outdated by decades — the day it was released.

It could display what the G3X does.

(And for the record, no consumer OS updates every Tuesday.)

To get a new graphical depiction of something other than an ancient radio needle is ONE update away. Not monthly.

Well, if it’s done right.

But again. It was about the graphics themselves. Not updates.

G5 takes serial data in, then moves virtual needles around a screen. Move boxes instead.

No need to depict old radio mechanical displays on anything anymore. Just do what’s already in the G3X. Across the whole product line.

The tech hardware contrast was intended to look outside aviation. That tech is accelerating away from avionics at red-shift speeds AND cheaper every year.

We don’t ask for better. We don’t dare. Someone will shout us down that our desires can not possibly occur and FAA is to blame! No manufacturer could ever ever possibly make a cheap high quality display that is not a picture of radio needles! Noooooo!

LOL. Ok.

Displaying stuff in better ways than fake needles just ain’t that hard. On everything.

And awesome display hardware is cheeeeeap.

And the tech gap between aviation panel stuff and everything else on displays just keeps widening.

Why? Because we like colored needle depictions I guess. Much excitement. High kwality.

Can blame it on FAA, G, somebody else — kinda doesn’t matter. You should get a lot more than line art from the 90s, on an old TN panel, with a plastic sun coating, for five figures.

Should get within a couple generations and decades of consumer grade for low four figures.

Should get digital mechanical needle replacements for less than mechanical rebuilds. Or equal. $500. Tops.

That’s just where the rest of the world has already gone. Long ago.

On displays anyway.

The BEST five figure panel mount place of them all makes excuses. Falls further and further behind. The $100 tablet app place writes nice display code and adds features.

Heck the panel place doesn’t even need to hire designers, just copy the design of the $100 guy’s stuff.

If it looks good and is a good way to depict things on a tablet for $100, it should look truly amazing in a five figure panel mount. That should be the buyers’ base expectation level.

Buyers want LCD needles I guess.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

No, that’s not what I said and you’re just being an ass for no reason. As usual I’ve made no personal attacks and you have. Congrats again.

Sorry man, I was just poking fun at your (and my!) word count. Hence the smiley.

I said they should do it on all products and specifically the G5 we were all discussing and its ancient depiction of instrument needles.

I didn’t say the overpriced G3X wasn’t available.

I only come back to the G3X because it's got that HITS display. That wouldn't be hard at all for the others to depict, but I don't see a huge demand for it yet and apparently neither does Garmin. You do need at least a magnetometer and OAT to make it all work though, which increases the price a little and the installation a fair amount.

The only evidence the certification actually costs roughly double is the manufacturer saying so. FAA is silent on it, and technically couldn’t confirm or deny it even if asked.

It's not just the certification, it's the liability.

Pilots THINK it’s a real doubling in costs to certify, and it’s cultural now to say so, but there’s nobody doing teardowns to look for hardware differences inside like we do see in nearly every other aspect of tech these days.

The hardware is, in at least one case, exactly the same. Same part number and everything.

I'd still love teardowns because I'd love to see what chips Garmin is using.

(Not that the aviation press would even know how.)

Nor would they be able to afford it any better than we would! I'd be happy to do a teardown but $$$$$...

Also... who says FAA doesn’t allow the model you gave above? They don’t care how you price those things as long as an avionics tech installs them.

Now that I think about it, Dynon does half of that. I think they charge $2,000 for the STC paperwork. They don't charge $100/mo for the software though.

Garmin’s displays are coming out of the same building in China. Again would bet big money.

The thing is, China doesn't automatically mean crap. They make a lot of crap, and it's cheap. It's also quite possible for them to make something less cheap that's of higher quality. iPhones are a prime example - They're the first piece of electronics I got that had been made in China but wasn't crap. China will build you something to the level you request, just like anyone else.

Yes, they’d pay about $300 to have that display have a touch screen added and a shake and bake test. You missed the bigger picture again.

No, you missed that this isn't just off the shelf crap. It's expected to last 20+ years, and it does.

Doesn’t matter. Copying it on modern hardware is nearly free. They already did it in fact. G3X. Right? Code is done. Certified even. Port it.

That may or may not be easy - Again, I'm curious about what's under the hood on Garmin's stuff. Do they use chips with the same instruction set across their lines? Do they have an operating system that puts them ahead of the game when it comes to creating the various pieces of their depictions?

The G5 wasn’t released in 1999.

I know. The point was that Garmin has to make stuff that's going to last, and they do.

To get a new graphical depiction of something other than an ancient radio needle is ONE update away. Not monthly.

That ignores the fact that we don't have anything objectively better than a needle for course deviation. Making a fancy graphical display doesn't make something that's automatically easy to read. Can you cite any human factors studies on things that might be better than needles? If you could, I would expect that it'd have been done already.

Can blame it on FAA, G, somebody else — kinda doesn’t matter. You should get a lot more than line art from the 90s, on an old TN panel, with a plastic sun coating, for five figures.

I did get more than that for five figures.

Should get digital mechanical needle replacements for less than mechanical rebuilds. Or equal. $500. Tops.

How do you propose to pay the software developers?

 

[luvflyin]

@denverpilot wins in a landslide with a 29 inch post over @flyingcheesehead 's 14 3/4 inches

 

[denverpilot]

Sorry man, I was just poking fun at your (and my!) word count. Hence the smiley.

We’re both bored. LOL

I only come back to the G3X because it's got that HITS display. That wouldn't be hard at all for the others to depict, but I don't see a huge demand for it yet and apparently neither does Garmin. You do need at least a magnetometer and OAT to make it all work though, which increases the price a little and the installation a fair amount.

True. I haven’t seen many installs done without either though, even in the smaller stuff. Wind data is too useful.

It's not just the certification, it's the liability.

A solid point but again, we don’t really know. It’s cultural to say Garmin is paying out millions in accidents or settlements or something, but not really documented as a real cost. The aviation community seems to make these things up to justify the outrageous price tags, all on our own. And then we continue to spread it like an old wives tale without any hard data backing it.

The hardware is, in at least one case, exactly the same. Same part number and everything.

I'd still love teardowns because I'd love to see what chips Garmin is using.



Nor would they be able to afford it any better than we would! I'd be happy to do a teardown but $$$$$...

Teardowns would be fun. Probably quite informative too. “You’re really using a 486SX in this thing?” Lol.

The thing is, China doesn't automatically mean crap. They make a lot of crap, and it's cheap. It's also quite possible for them to make something less cheap that's of higher quality. iPhones are a prime example - They're the first piece of electronics I got that had been made in China but wasn't crap. China will build you something to the level you request, just like anyone else.

Never said it was crap. Said it came out of the same factory. Cheeeeeeap.

No, you missed that this isn't just off the shelf crap. It's expected to last 20+ years, and it does.

That’s the thing. It all IS off the shelf now. The world went mobile. All mobile displays are ruggedized way beyond anything in an aircraft panel, and the ones marketed as even more ruggedized are made by the millions for stuff like ruggedized outdoor readable laptops.

Twenty years ago avionics makers could get away with ( or we could make up stories about ) them needing a difficult to source rugged display for a panel. Those days are long gone. This stuff is standard line card orders now and the avionics makers are just tapping off a tiny fraction of the mainstream.

That may or may not be easy - Again, I'm curious about what's under the hood on Garmin's stuff. Do they use chips with the same instruction set across their lines? Do they have an operating system that puts them ahead of the game when it comes to creating the various pieces of their depictions?

We don’t know which is why I said “port” vs “#include”. LOL. But I’d say that inside most large code shops that make hardware that I’ve worked at, they’ve all said “We are a <insert build and language tool chain here> shop and they rarely allow multiple. It gets way too expensive to support multiple languages and tool chains.

If I had to guess I’d say that most are using an RTOS like VxWorks. If they’re really broke and forward thinking, maybe the RTOS Linux kernel patches at the small shops.

Also would be relatively insane (especially for certification reasons) to not be using libraries for repetitive things like “draw an HSI”. Or whatever level of modularity they break it down to. Re-writing everything for every box would be a massive waste of time.

We don’t even load whole servers anymore in my world. That crap is automated. Cattle vs pets.

That ignores the fact that we don't have anything objectively better than a needle for course deviation. Making a fancy graphical display doesn't make something that's automatically easy to read. Can you cite any human factors studies on things that might be better than needles? If you could, I would expect that it'd have been done already.

Interesting question. I was focused on the asked about ILS depiction where either being pegged on the needles fully deflected or outside a skybox is enough for a go around back to enroute. Not a need much in that phase of the flight. Enroute, being so far off course you can’t find the skyboxes would be kinda a stupid pilot trick for sure, but I’d say an arrow pointing left or right with a mileage under it — maybe make it flash beyond the typical airway centerline distances if even ON an airway these days... who is? — is enough of a hint as to where to look for your lost skyboxes. LOL.

Most lost pilots just look at the 2D overhead map anyway and start punching Direct->Direct to something. Voila, new skyboxes right off the nose. LOL. (And apologizing profusely to the controller who’s yelling at them, if being controlled...)

As far as paying the developers goes, it’s partially volume and partially the boxes that feed the displays. Tons and tons of the fleet is still using gyros and doesn’t need to be, at the currently doable price points. A “digital needle display” that matches the price of the mechanical gyros is a mechanical instrument killer. Sell one every time a mechanical dies at that price. A way to upgrade and buy the better display features without involving an avionics shop, and value add the thing, even better.

A panel GPS? That’s expensive engineering and I get that. The little 4” display? Razors and razor blades.

Like I said, if uploading terrain data from a tablet downloaded via WiFi isn’t a safety problem, neither is doing the same with new firmware. It’s the paperwork that’s difficult. So beat on FAA to allow a modular paperwork format. If X code loaded in box, must print off PDF 22 and stick in airplane. That’s all the avionics shop is doing for those anyway.

Honestly, and I don’t mean this in too mean a way, but watching my avionics guy run his PC on G’s website is freaking painful. LOL. But I see that a lot at work, so I just wait. And wait. And wait. People have no idea how to operate their own computers.

They’re “amazed” there are keyboard shortcuts for everything. You know how many people don’t know CTRL-C and CTRL-V are a thing? LOL. (Or in your case, Apple-C and V. LOL. So standardized they’re the same muscle memory between competitors...)

But anyway... yeah... waiting around at $100/hr for someone to print a PDF is fairly annoying. LOL. I totally want to pay that same person handsomely to make fussy annoying wiring harnesses but firmware updates and printing a new section for the airplane book? Come on Aviation... get into the early 2000s at least.

I guess I should be satisfied the stupid manual doesn’t have to be printed in Kansas and overnighted via FedEx like my $35 POH was from Cessna. LOL. Oh thanks. A $50 pamphlet written in 1975! LOL. It’s “official” and legal! ROFLMAO. (Note: Mine is so old they’re not even serialized to the aircraft. Replacing a more modern AFM is horrendous.)

(Also should be noted that I literally work 30 feet from a professional print shop as one of our businesses. They’d love to print pamphlet sized stuff for $35 or a three ring binder of PDFs for $hundreds a copy even with customization to add serial numbers on any page desired via a template, as one-offs. Haha. They get pennies for doing that by the hundreds of thousands and already make a nice profit. Waiting around on the airplane shop guys who can barely drive a keyboard when you got print shop operators a few feet away at the office, is like watching sap ooze from an old tree. We won’t even mention the speed at which the average airplane shop’s laser printer operates... haha. We feed ours with roll paper that requires a forklift to load it!)

 

[Sierra_Hotel]

I've written term papers shorter than this discussion.

 

[denverpilot]

I've written term papers shorter than this discussion.

I needed something to do while awaiting results of various audits this week. LOL.

Would rather go flying instead but that ain’t in the cards. Ha.

Also been buying a lot of upgraded tech recently for work and the performance of and quality level of insanely cheap stuff mixed with looking at this ancient junk we get from manufacturers in aviation, was deeply highlighted when noticed side by side.

We’re just really used to what really is garbage tech now, stuff that belongs in a recycling center or landfill already, and making tons of excuses for it.

Not that I don’t love “GPS Direct”... vs what I started with in aviation almost 30 years ago. But I see a widening gap in speed to market and an enormous gap in price change.

I’m essentially buying tech for average users at work now that they’ll never ever touch the capabilities of, for commodity prices. I mean truly they won’t even come close to actually using half of what we buy them for nearly nothing.

Outfitting an entire department with brand new tech for the price of one aviation panel box... just doesn’t compute. Pun intended.

Everybody see the Ryzen 5000 announcement? AMD kicking Intel in the teeth with a boot while they’re down, is mild entertainment... and making it look easy.

I don’t see anybody on the horizon who could provide similar “motivation” to Big G.

Ohhhhhh well.