RSS Feeds
Engineer and Team Bring Glass Cockpit Technology to Small Airplanes
Glass Cockpit approach would use MEMS to electronically mimic the operation of the mechanical gyroscopes so common in small aircraft
John Loughmiller, Contributing Editor -- Design News, July 30, 2009
Gus Kyriakos was the youngest recipient ever of the Volare Award, presented by the Airlines Avionics Institute. He's a shirtsleeve manager, not an office dweller, with over 35 years experience in the avionics industry and a person who considers the term "impossible" to be a personal challenge.
Kyriakos embodied the skills and mindset needed to implement a new approach to Glass Cockpit design and Aspen Avionics wanted him.
Aspen Avionics' founders, Peter Lyons and Jeff Bethel were searching for a way to bring the latest advances in Glass Cockpit avionics to those aircraft owners and pilots that operated the small, less capable aircraft.
Aspen's Glass Cockpit approach would use MEMS (Micro-machined Electro-Mechanical Systems) to electronically mimic the operation of the mechanical gyroscopes so common in small aircraft.
Because of MEMS, a Glass Cockpit has a much higher MTBF than mechanical gyroscopes. And, since there's a flat panel display available, many more features can be added such as moving maps, traffic and weather information which greatly enhance safety.
Normally, all of this takes up a large amount of space on the instrument panel but Lyons and Bethel's dream had resulted in an epiphany. Why not install the avionics directly into the holes made available by the removal of the old mechanical displays?
After all, one of the principle reasons for the installation cost run-up was the need to destroy the OEM instrument panel since all competing equipment required large mounting holes.
The Dream Weaver
Trained as an EE, Gus Kyriakos loved hardware design but he also understood software and mechanical issues. He had the ability to see a design problem both in isolation and within the larger context of a system. He was an in-the-trenches engineer and his resume was impressive.
Kyriakos had just brought Avidyne Corporation's avionics design facility online in Melbourne, Florida.
Before that, he'd led a 100 person Allied Signal Corporation design team responsible for the development of the TCAS (Traffic - Collision Avoidance System) avionics device. The invention had saved countless lives.
And he had established Rockwell Collins' Communications, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS) Center for Engineering Excellence during his tenure there.
He took a look at what Aspen Avionics had in mind and accepted their offer. He hasn't looked back since that day.
To implement the concept envisioned by Lyons and Bethel, Kyriakos' initial task was to build a team of hardware and software engineers who could translate the founder's Evolution Flight Display System (EFD1000) dream into reality.
So he ramped up the engineering staff and then, with his cadre in place, he updated the existing project roadmap. Kyriakos and his team spent many long days--and not a few evenings and weekends--getting the embryonic product to function correctly. It was fun in a way only engineers understand.
Gus-isms
As the check marks accumulated on the project task list, the EFD1000 iterations continued to roll out of the lab until they had a working prototype. It wasn't a walk in the park however.
Kyriakos had a well deserved reputation of being a hard charger. He demanded nothing more of his direct reports than what he was willing to contribute himself but it was during these days that a new lexicon manifested itself at Aspen: the list of "Gus-isms."
The software team members were found of saying "Gus always challenges us to design well enough to pass the ‘Gus Test'. He seems to have an innate ability to break any software within five minutes."
To an engineer working on an intractable interface problem he would say "How hard can it be? We were doing RS-232 in the 70's." Then he'd suggest a solution.
To an EE, he'd sniff the burned up component, look at the schematic and remark that he could "fix that problem with a diode and a zero ohm resistor." He'd then walk away, only to return and help find the real solution if needs be.
And if the project bogged down, he'd simply toss out a remark like "Today doesn't end until 9 AM tomorrow." But a grin would quickly follow.
The Evolution Revolution
In spite of the Gus-isms--or maybe because of them--the engineering team was busy churning out solutions. The product design execution however was constrained by how different the operating environment is in a small airplane compared to an airliner or large business jet.
Unlike airliners, few of the aircraft thought to be candidates for the EFD1000 had flight instruments (or even instrument mounting holes) on the right side of the cockpit. This forces a co-pilot or flight instructor to use the pilot's instruments. It isn't dangerous or even all that difficult but it's not anything like an airliner's cockpit.
This operating difference required the off axis specification for the displays to take on a new importance. Also, the display couldn't wash out in the intense sunlight that's often present during flight.
Cooling issues were another problem. Air conditioning is not present in most small aircraft and temperatures can reach very high levels if the aircraft is left sitting on the flight line in direct sunlight.
Temperature compensation therefore became a huge issue as well as the need for a component ageing regime and the use of fans.
Another problem area was the autopilot interfaces. It seemed that every autopilot manufacturer had a different approach to interfacing issues and each method had to be discovered and addressed. It wasn't so much difficult as it was time consuming.
Looking downstream to follow-on products, reversion parameters had to be devised so that should the EFD1000 responsible for the attitude and heading display fail, another one, normally used for a non-critical function such as a moving map display, could pick up the slack using totally separate electronics.
A battery backup system insured that a total power failure would not cause a loss of ability to control the airplane in instrument conditions. The battery however had to operate in the same potentially high temperature environment as the rest of the package and yet not have its amp hour rating or useful life compromised.
And then there was the software. Because avionics software functionality and safety of flight issues are so closely related, the code was revised again and again until it was 100% fit for purpose and bulletproof.
As the possibility of success came closer, Kyriakos applied his considerable packaging skills to house the electronics in such a way that the OEM instrument panel in an airplane need not be disturbed yet the EFD1000 would be robust enough to survive in the alien environment of flight.
Such an accomplishment is no small feat because of the constant vibration that's present in piston engine powered aircraft.
Guaranteeing a high MTBF for two vibrating printed circuit boards, plus a display, cantilevered from an instrument panel that's also vibrating, is a tough problem but Kyriakos dealt with it using vibration dampening and component reinforcing techniques.
And the chess pieces moved ever closer to the other side of the board.
The Omnipresent FAA
An avionics product, even one that's well designed, still has a huge hurdle to jump before sales can begin. The Federal Aviation Administration has specifications on what's allowable and what isn't. The infamous T.S.O. -Technical Standard Orders - authorization documents are not suggestions. They're the law.
Kyriakos again found himself doing an extended dance with the FAA just as he had at Allied Signal. This time though, he was working for a smaller company. The FAA always looks askance at such companies which made the task all the more difficult.
Fortunately, co-founder Peter Lyons had developed a strong relationship with the FAA at another company which helped immensely. So design decisions were explained and changes made as required. And beneath the gaze of the steely eyed FAA inspectors, the two men pushed the acceptance tests over the finish line.
As a result, the Evolution EFD1000 product received the coveted FAA approval and Aspen Avionics found themselves the poster child for what's possible when a dedicated group of people set out to revolutionize an industry.
John Uczekaj, Aspen's President and CEO, sums things up in a statement that doesn't give his own leadership abilities proper credit but instead recognizes the accomplishments of his employees and Gus Kyriakos:
"Aspen's accomplishments are due to the efforts of many individuals and teams throughout the organization. But without the leadership and knowledge of Gus Kyriakos, Aspen Avionics, as a company, might not have been successful.
Gus has been on a long career journey that led him here. Every part of that journey was preparing him to take a small company's revolutionary concept and turn it into reality. Peter Lyons and Jeff Bethel wanted to offer the General Aviation world ‘Avionics for the rest of us.' Gus and his staff helped make that possible."
John Loughmiller is an EE, Commercial Pilot, Flight Instructor and a Lead Safety Team Representative for the FAA.
Read up on all the candidates for Design News' 2009 Engineer of the Year!
Gallery »
Engineer and Team Bring Glass Cockpit Technology to Small Airplanes
-
I wish more companies and engineering managers had Gus Kyriakos' attitude toward product design. I'm disappointed how often I find hardware or software products that malfunction or fail within ten minutes of my starting to use them.
Andrew Poth - 2009-3-8 16:01:25 EDT -
In an airliner, even though there are multiple redundancies as well as a complete set of instruments on the co-pilot's side, there still must be the same mechanical back up instruments in almost all airplanes.
The system described in the article has up to three panels available, each with its own set of electronics and its own back up battery. If a small airplane has multiple panels installed, the FAA may eventually give Aspen Avionics permission to do away with the three backup mechanical instruments since there would be multiple redundancies.
That permission has not been granted as yet so even with multiple panels, the back up mechanical instruments are still required.'>The System profiled in the article requires that an old technology mechanical Altimeter, Airspeed indicator and Artificial Horizon be retained in the instrument panel as a back up. Whenever there's only one set of electronics available, this is the requirement for small aircraft glass displays.
In an airliner, even though there are multiple redundancies as well as a complete set of instruments on the co-pilot's side, there still must be the same mechanical back up instruments in almost all airplanes.
The system described in the article has up to three panels available, each with its own set of electronics and its own back up battery. If a small airplane has multiple panels installed, the FAA may eventually give Aspen Avionics permission to do away with the three backup mechanical instruments since there would be multiple redundancies.
That permission has not been granted as yet so even with multiple panels, the back up mechanical instruments are still required.
John Loughmiller - 2009-31-7 21:07:17 EDT -
Therefore I think that removing all back-up (mechanical) instruments might be not wise...yet.'>Hi!
This is a fantastic piece of work. Even not a pilot (like myself) understands it. But...(probably due to my limited knowledge in this area) i see some problems. As we all know, electronics can and do fail sometimes. Usually in the worst case...
In case of serious disasters (H-bomb attack creates a strong electromagnetic impulse wiping most chips offline) or extremely bad weather conditions (recall Airbus still unresolved accident) even execllent electronics tend to fail.
I fly (or fun only)electric heli models. On them i also noticed that gyros and other equipment tend to fail in critical situations. Several other modelists also share this opinion (and sad experience). Of course it may be a different on real flying machines...
In air-borne vehicles electronics failures could be fatal. Shouldn't pilots still have some time-proved back-up devices as a last resort?
Therefore I think that removing all back-up (mechanical) instruments might be not wise...yet.
Veljo Sinivee - 2009-30-7 16:47:17 EDT
