Peter wrote:
Look at PPL training. Except for trivia (e.g. an acknowledgement that notams come via the internet, not a fax on a callback number) it has not changed since WW2 and mostly not since WW1. The WW1 navigation is still taught.
But, you could argue it doesn’t need to change. For instance, a moving map app, there is nothing to learn except the app itself. The app changes from vendor to vendor and over time, and it is not difficult in the first place. On the other hand, one can argue that the only reason printed maps are made is because of PPL training, and that will of course make the whole thing nothing but an academic, and utterly outdated, exercise.
Personally, in the UK, between initial IR in 1971, and renewal in 2010, I found the examiners from different planets.
The initial IR was an extremely formal exercise (anyone else experienced Chopper Harris? A legend in his own time) and the renewal, besides the formal test, was combined with some very practical discussion/instruction – almost an advanced seminar.
Peter wrote:
IFR training has not changed in decades. Loads of FTO and CAA jobs depend on the present system and there will be resistance to change until the next generation.
As someone who has taken IFR training twice (once in 1987 and then again in 2014) I can tell you that things have indeed “changed in decades”. Well, maybe not in the UK. ;-)
It will “never” happen.
Look at PPL training. Except for trivia (e.g. an acknowledgement that notams come via the internet, not a fax on a callback number) it has not changed since WW2 and mostly not since WW1. The WW1 navigation is still taught.
IFR training has not changed in decades. Loads of FTO and CAA jobs depend on the present system and there will be resistance to change until the next generation.
The real IFR revolution will be when the ILS cross pointer gets replaced by a SynVis runway, and path guidance by more intuitive “tunnels in the sky”, arrows etc instead of HSI needles.
In the current world, this is a bit dodgy except for approaches where both lateral vertical guidance is provided by the GPS. But in the long run, everything will be LPV, so the needles will be obsolete.
And it will be SOOO much easier to fly IFR.
Peter wrote:
with very little need for functional innovation (VFR and IFR has not really changed for decades)
VFR has indeed changed. The rules are the same, and you can fly using a compass and a map today as well. But, first came the GPS, and things started to happen. Then moving maps, and now EFISes that can do 3D nav on autopilot. Compass and map will soon disappear, not because it doesn’t work, but because obtaining updated paper maps for an arbitrary piece of Europe is a PITA today. In moving map app i’t a click on an “OK” button. This is transferred directly to the EFIS also. I believe we are only at the very start of this change. Moving maps on pads will also eventually disappear, or become merged with EFISes somehow. Lots of things are happening under the hood of these EFISes, that’s where things are really changing right now.
For “digital” VFR navigation there are nothing of old procedures and regulations that holds the development back. IFR still uses procedures and solutions that were made for navigation technologies from the 60s and earlier.
MGL has this thing they call “GLS” that work on any air strip. Its an imaginary “ILS” shown on the HSI and in 3D (synthetic vision), and is dead simple and intuitive (except for IFR rated pilots I guess 
) They also have a gliding thing that helps you in the event of engine failure, and because of 3D map it really works.
We don’t need any of it, it’s just that it’s so much simpler to use than compass and map, that it creates a need just because of that. The prices are such that people can afford to upgrade every 10 years or so, and it get’s a life on it’s own, not unlike PCs and mobile phones. Myself, I could get by with just a compass and map just fine, but when it’s there, and it’s simpler to install and use than old steam gauges, and and it doesn’t even cost more.
I know… we are using an ARM board at work also.
I think my point was that this €5k (say) product might have contained €300 in parts in 1985 and €100 in parts in 2015, so it makes little difference. Except of course €5k was a lot more money in 1985, but that’s a different point
A lot of stuff was much harder in 1985 e.g. precision analog e.g. voltage references with X ppm/degC drift (I was doing that in the 1970s but it involved pretty weird stuff) but there is nothing applicable in avionics I can think of except AHRS, and hi-res LCDs. Flow totalisers still squirt out the data at 4800 or 9600 baud on RS232
IMHO the avionics technology scene is driven by factors which are little to do with what is technically possible and what it costs to do it. You have
Looking at the homebuilt scene, even if people chuck the stuff out every 5-10 years, you still have the lack of a need for new functionality. Take a walk around Aero Friedrichshafen and ask yourself how many more lookalike EFIS boxes can sell into the marketplace…
Peter wrote:
I agree, but you don’t need a dozen ARM cores to run an EFIS box for a homebuilt.
You don’t but they will already come with the display etc. (for many off the shelf displays). ARM is very scalable, you can start off with the ARM M0 (up to about 50MHz, no cache, simple 32 bit address space, Thumb instructions only, no supervisor mode or MMU or FPU, simple 3 stage pipeline) up to the high end 64 bit stuff you find in a tablet or phone which will be on a par with some desktop CPUs, and it’s generally cheaper than anything in the x86 world and consumes a lot less power for the same performance (and for embedded, which avionics is, there are other advantages to ARM such as the very low interrupt response latency even on the very low end). You can also find ARM SoCs which will do everything an EFIS needs in terms of CPU, peripheral interfaces etc. in a single chip that costs buttons. Forget low end VGA cards etc. – the whole thing is in the ARM SoC and you don’t need very much on the board it’s soldered to to make a complete computer.
Peter wrote:
So it has become easier and cheaper but I don’t think that costs have come down enough, in the context of a four digit priced product.
I believe they have. I am heavily involved with medical devices and I know certainly that most products with 4 or somtimes 5-digit EUR prices consist of parts worth less than 100 EUR. Complexity-wise IMO these device are in the same range as avionics and there are normally safety implications as well.
Peter wrote:
you don’t need a dozen ARM cores
They might not be really required, but they might well mean the most cost-effective solution. Well, ok then, half a dozen, perhaps.
