Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Use CRT Monitors?  
User currently offlineGoinv From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 264 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4269 times:

I work in a computer shop where we sell one of the old fashioned CRT monitors to every 99 of the new slimline TFT monitors.

Not only do TFT's look better but they are lighter as well.

As far as I am aware, airlines only use CRT monitors on flight-decks. Why not use TFT's? They are lighter and would require less fuel. Are there any less obvious implications of using TFT's rathers that CRT's?

Thanks


Be who you are, The world was made to measure for your smile. So Smile.
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMatt72033 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1617 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4257 times:

they use LCD's in flight decks, not only are they lighter, but i believe they run cooler and therefore quieter too!

User currently offlineBuckFifty From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1316 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4233 times:

There is a gradual transition now to LCD screens in cockpits. But as with anything in the aviation industry, things do take a bit of time compared with the consumer electronics industry. Mostly due to certification standards, and reliability issues.

For example, the Airbus MCDU's we use run with an equivalent of a 286 processor. Sounds archaic, but just enough to do the job.


User currently offlineStar_world From Ireland, joined Jun 2001, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4212 times:

A340-600 with LCD screens:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bjorn Alegren



A340-300 with CRT screens:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tomás Coelho - AirTeamImages



As mentioned above, LCD screens are now becoming much more common in flight decks, and are pretty much standard in all new models today.


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4205 times:

That A346 cockpit looks really pretty. I'm usually not that enamoured with the looks of Airbus cockpits but that one is enough to get me reconsidering.

However, there appears to be no body attached to that hand? Airlines are recruiting Thing to fly their planes!

[Edited 2005-12-06 13:28:27]

User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4027 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4205 times:

Don't forget that a new TFT monitor you sell today in your shop will be completely unserviceable in a few years, meaning there is no way you can repair it or buy a replacement one.

An aircraft will have to fly for at least 20 years so you have to make sure that in 15 years time you still have spare parts and replacement units. That is one of the reasons things take so long to reach aviation.

If you want something to really be amazed, the equivalent to a Pentium processor (the early ones) is something still highly unusual in satellites. The reason there is mainly reliability, and resistance to radiation.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31692 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4196 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 5):
Don't forget that a new TFT monitor you sell today in your shop will be completely unserviceable in a few years, meaning there is no way you can repair it or buy a replacement one

Pls Elobrate what do you mean by unserviceable.are you talking in terms of reliability or spares.

LCD monitors are gradually replacing CRT monitors in Display units.They are more clearer & having better resolution & reliability.

regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4027 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4191 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 6):
Pls Elobrate what do you mean by unserviceable.are you talking in terms of reliability or spares.

Consumer electronics advance so rapidly that equipment becomes obsolete in a matter of years. Modern equipment like TFTs are not made to be repaired: when it does break you can probably get a newer, better one in the market for almost the same price it would cost you to repair it, if you can do it. They are basically disposable.

Reliability isn't a major issue, availability of replacements and spares is.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 19 hours ago) and read 4092 times:

The biggest show stopper for LCDs has been readability in various lighting conditions (i e direct sunlight) and at all angles. That's pretty much a solved issue now though.


I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 17 hours ago) and read 4047 times:

Quoting BuckFifty (Reply 2):
For example, the Airbus MCDU's we use run with an equivalent of a 286 processor. Sounds archaic, but just enough to do the job.

The 777 runs equivalent to a 386 if memory serves me correctly. I know some will say why don't they update it. The problem there is that you would have to change the type certificate. Along with driving up the costs for the airlines.

Right now AA is in the process of replacing the "steam gauge" ADI and HSI's on their older MD-80's with LCD's. Over the years it has become more and more expensive to repair the "steam gauge" ADI and HSI's because a lot of the parts have been stopped being produced. By replacing them with more reliable LCD's AA expects to save $36 million a year in maintenance and flight crew training costs.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17079 posts, RR: 66
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 12 hours ago) and read 3982 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 9):
The 777 runs equivalent to a 386 if memory serves me correctly. I know some will say why don't they update it. The problem there is that you would have to change the type certificate. Along with driving up the costs for the airlines.

There's also the old "if it works, don't fix it". Why bother with all the certification if the old one does the job. No more processing power is needed than what's in there. You're not going to play Doom 3 on the FMC.

The computer industry is different, in that processing power is still catching up to demand.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 3925 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 10):
You're not going to play Doom 3 on the FMC.

I'm a Halo fan myself.  Wink


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6496 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3886 times:

Quoting FredT (Reply 8):
The biggest show stopper for LCDs has been readability in various lighting conditions (i e direct sunlight) and at all angles. That's pretty much a solved issue now though.

Exactly! In year 2000 I got a terribly expensive IBM TFT office screen. It served the job, but looked upon from an angle it was useless. It was practically impossible for two persons to study a display simultaneously. I often missed my 1994 vintage CRT, but as we had also got smaller desks...

Last year it broke and was exchanged with a new Samsung at a fraction of the 2000 price. What a revolution!!! And like the old CRT it can also be used in daylight.

Right now I'm working a private two months old Dell laptop. It has of course a much lower power consumption, and the result is the same as the 2000 IBM TFT. But when needed I just plug an old CRT which I haven't disposed yet.

It simply isn't until rather lately that the TFT technology has become good enough to be used on airliners.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3879 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 9):
The 777 runs equivalent to a 386 if memory serves me correctly. I know some will say why don't they update it. The problem there is that you would have to change the type certificate. Along with driving up the costs for the airlines.

And everything has to be retrofittable and compatible. You will have to be able to install a new system and it will still have to be interchangable with the current units in service (e.g. spares)

IIRC, the Space Shuttle flies using 8086 processors? Now that is a feat of engineering using those!


User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3840 times:

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 13):
IIRC, the Space Shuttle flies using 8086 processors? Now that is a feat of engineering using those!

I believe those were the original processors but they have since been upgraded to....Pentium 90s! (I think that upgrade also brought in the glass panels.) I grew up across the river from the Space Center and my dad worked for the the company that made the nose cone and aft skirts for the boosters so I have tons of info about those. IIRC the fuel pumps for the shuttle were pretty much off the shelf items from old Korean War era jet fighters. Knowing how old the tecnology is on the shuttle (pretty much the same design from the original thought in the 60s) it is downright amazing they even get up in the air.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17079 posts, RR: 66
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3822 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 12):
It simply isn't until rather lately that the TFT technology has become good enough to be used on airliners.

Indeed. I used to be involved in selling workstations to people who ran CAD and Digital Content Creation (think Shrek). It took a long time before flat panels took over in the high end applications, because the late (last) generation CRTs would beat them hands down until only a very few years ago. Mere mortals like me would not notice the difference, but if you are a digital artist minute details can affect your work.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6423 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3806 times:

Quoting Goinv (Thread starter):
I work in a computer shop where we sell one of the old fashioned CRT monitors to every 99 of the new slimline TFT monitors.

Not only do TFT's look better but they are lighter as well.

As far as I am aware, airlines only use CRT monitors on flight-decks. Why not use TFT's? They are lighter and would require less fuel. Are there any less obvious implications of using TFT's rathers that CRT's?

Thanks

The CRTs used in aviation are also vector-scan scopes (remember the original Atari Sar Wars arcade video game, or Battlezone? Both of these used vector scan scopes instead of the more common raster-scan CRTs).

Vector scan CRTs have one distinct advantage over raster scan CRTs: they are visible in direct sunlight, and the brightness can be cranked up that high.

Disadvantages? If you try to display too much information, the vector scan CRT cannot keep up with it after a certain point.

Obviously, raster scan and vector technology are not compatible with each other, so TFT displays are out (without some very expensive, and probably hard to certify, conversion hardware) in a 1:1 replacement. However, I'm pretty sure that new flight decks on new aircraft will be taking advantage of LCD technology. We are already seeing this in General Aviation (look at Garmin's G100). I regularly fly a Cessna 172 with a TFT moving map display that is quite readable in all lighting conditons (even direct sunlight!). It's an Apollo MX20 moving map for those who are interested in such details...



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3744 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 9):
The 777 runs equivalent to a 386 if memory serves me correctly

It actually has three 486 processors, made by Intel, Motorola and AMD.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 16):
It's an Apollo MX20 moving map

I love the MX20!!! Even better when you got ADS-B information!!!


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6423 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3734 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 17):
I love the MX20!!! Even better when you got ADS-B information!!!

Beautiful piece of hardware, especially when paired with the CNX80 (which, I understand, Garmin has put out of production since taking over Apollo....bummer!)  Sad

Although It is a bit disconcerting seeing Windows NT 4.0 boot up on the MX20 when you turn the avionics master on...makes me wonder when this wonderkid is going to blue screen on me in actual IMC  Wink Fortunately, it's just a moving map, and you can go on without it...just with slightly reduced situational awareness.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineShyFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3680 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 18):
CNX80 (which, I understand, Garmin has put out of production since taking over Apollo....bummer!)

Nah, they just renamed it the GNS 480.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 10):
Why bother with all the certification if the old one does the job. No more processing power is needed than what's in there

Expanding on this, the computer systems in the cockpit don't have the bloat that Windoze PC processors have to cope with.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17079 posts, RR: 66
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3672 times:

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 19):

Expanding on this, the computer systems in the cockpit don't have the bloat that Windoze PC processors have to cope with.

Oh indeed. But then again they don't have to integrate software and hardware from hundreds of sources, AND a graphical interface.

For the record, I'm a Mac fan who doesn't own a Mac  Sad



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3661 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 18):
Although It is a bit disconcerting seeing Windows NT 4.0 boot up on the MX20 when you turn the avionics master on...makes me wonder when this wonderkid is going to blue screen on me in actual IMC

Ahh yes, the infamous blue screen of death  scared 

Also, I think it runs on CE, not NT from what I remember reading in the display.

Still, I think it provides the best bang for the buck out of most all other aftermarket upgrades.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17079 posts, RR: 66
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3611 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 21):
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 18):
Although It is a bit disconcerting seeing Windows NT 4.0 boot up on the MX20 when you turn the avionics master on...makes me wonder when this wonderkid is going to blue screen on me in actual IMC

Ahh yes, the infamous blue screen of death scared

Also, I think it runs on CE, not NT from what I remember reading in the display.

Still, I think it provides the best bang for the buck out of most all other aftermarket upgrades.

Windows can be very stable if tested properly and not tampered with. The whole BSOD thing is not really an issue anymore in Enterprise class systems with good change control.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Use CRT Monitors?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Use Reverse Thrust On Long Runways posted Tue Jan 11 2005 10:15:14 by JumboJim747
Why Doesn't ATL Use Immediate Departures? posted Sun Sep 3 2006 06:41:24 by SESGDL
Position And Hold? Why Do We Use This? posted Thu Mar 2 2006 21:07:30 by Alias1024
Why Not Use Goo Tyres On Aircraft posted Tue Feb 1 2005 10:59:27 by Allpress
Why Asian Pilots Use Gloves During Flight Ops? posted Thu Nov 28 2002 05:09:14 by Jgore
Why Don't Anybody Build Airliners Out Of Steel? posted Sat Dec 9 2006 04:19:24 by 747400sp
Oasis Hongkong: Permission To Use Russian Airspace posted Fri Dec 8 2006 22:07:23 by A300605R
Does 777 Use VORs posted Mon Nov 27 2006 13:54:43 by Gopal
Why 2 Engines More Efficient Than 3, Or 4? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 03:13:12 by MarkC
Why Airbus For Start-ups? posted Mon Nov 13 2006 18:27:42 by AirWillie6475

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format