IITSEC not as busy this year but the technology is as cool as ever

Posted by John McHale

Traffic at the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) in Orlando, Fla., this week is a little less and the exhibit floor is a little smaller – seems like a whole hall is missing – than last year, but the technology showcased is as cutting edge and just as plain cool as it always was.

Traffic at the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) in Orlando, Fla., this week is a little less and the exhibit floor is a little smaller -- seems like a whole hall is missing -- than last year, but the technology showcased is as cutting edge and just as plain cool as it always was.

The annual trade show focuses on technology for training the warfighter such as flight simulators, avionics trainers, vehicular simulators, training systems for avoiding and detecting improvised explosive devises (IEDs), flight displays, image generators, rugged laptops, etc.

While many exhibitors say that traffic is slower than in years past, the market is still strong as military funding for training systems continues to remain steady for new systems as well as retrofits.

Highlights for me at the show aside from my fun with the Rockwell Collins heads-up display pictured here, included a demonstration of manned and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) teaming from L-3 Communications.

L-3 engineers showed that a UAV teamed with a Stryker unit, a rescue helicopter, and an attack helicopter can effectively work together on a mission through streaming video that all have access too. They can train either in the same room or thousands of miles apart.

The L-3 concept will enable warfighters to get this type of team training much earlier than in the past, better preparing them for when they deploy, L-3's Michael Rapavi, told me.

The concept that intrigued me the most was the COMBATREDI portable training system for dismounted soldiers from Cubic in Orlando. The system is worn by the soldier -- run by a computer on his back -- and uses sensors located on his body to determine if he is running, crouching, jumping, etc. Sensors also detect the position of his weapon. The sensors communicate wirelessly with in the system.

Soldiers can use it anywhere even in their living room if need be.

Another thing that I learned in my meeting with Cubic was a new military acronym … just when I thought I heard them all.

I asked whether or not the COMBATREDI system will be able to update its scenarios with real-time intelligence from the field and was told that that will be a P3I, which stands for pre-programmed product improvement ... in other words new capabilities that will be added later.

I heard a story once that an engineer once wrote an entire paragraph using only acronyms ... verbs and all.

I believe it.

Follow me on Twitter

COTS, COTS, COTS, COTS

Posted by John McHale

Nearly everyone I speak to at avionics or defense trade shows or for interviews over the phone brings up the COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) procurement term in some way. They make COTS products, use COTS practices, or think COTS is the worst thing in the world.

Nearly everyone I speak to at avionics and defense trade shows or for interviews over the phone brings up the COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) procurement term in some way. They make COTS products, use COTS practices, or think COTS is the worst thing in the world.

Everyone seems to have different definitions or different acronyms for COTS. I've heard GOTS -- government-off-the-shelf; ROTS -- rugged-off-the-shelf; MOTS -- military-off-the-shelf; NOTS -- NATO-off-the-shelf; or my personal favorite: KOTS -- kinda-off-the-shelf. A few industry friends tell me they see a lot of SHOTS or "sh "-off-the-shelf. I'll let you fill in the rest ... we are a family web site ya know.

Seriously though, COTS is a procurement term that is supposed to embrace technology standards, but lacks any standard definition itself.

We like to think of COTS as being anything that is available out of a company catalog, even if it is tweaked or adjusted for a specific program. On the other hand custom would be anything that the government or end-user pays a supplier to develop from the ground up.

We've been talking about COTS for 15 years now. We've had shows about it and dedicated sections of our magazine to it, but many of our readers still differ on its meaning.

Some think the original intent of the Perry memo was to embrace commercial practices rather than a decree to run out and buy gadgets right off the shelf at Radio Shack or Fry's. In other words, to create standard product lines of MIL-STD components that can be bought off the shelf.

Many companies do offer such solutions, but just as many will buy a totally commercial component that does not meet military specifications and put it in a rugged enclosure.

Using COTS also cuts down on development time, which is very important to DOD program managers who want to get technology into the hands of the warfighter in Iraq or Afghanistan as fast as possible. DOD funding has been diverted from long-term programs to solutions that can be deployed near term to the warfighter.

Regardless, of how COTS is deployed or used, its dark side -- obsolecscne remains. No matter how you define it, designers still have to manage how they will support programs with components that will be obsolete in a few months or years.

Desginers of the avionics for the Orion spacecraft -- the proposed replacement for the space shuttle -- at Honeywell told me in January that managing obsolescene is one of their biggest challenges, but they cannot reach many of their performance golas without making use of COTS electronics and standards.

A decade and half after the Perry memo COTS has become a household word to those in the defense industry, it remains a kind of procurement wonder drug with wonderful benefits and occasionally some nasty side effects.

What does COTS mean to you? I would love to hear your COTS definition, your COTS success, or even a COTS horror story.

Follow me on Twitter

David Jensen joins Avionics Intelligence

Posted by John McHale

I am quite thrilled to announce that veteran aviation journalist David Jensen has joined our staff as a contributing editor. He will be writing one feature and news article a month for the Avionics Intelligence website and e-newsletter.
I am quite thrilled to announce that veteran aviation journalist David Jensen has joined our staff as a contributing editor. He will be writing one feature and news article a month for the Avionics Intelligence website and e-newsletter.

David is also serving on the advisory boards for our Avionics Europe and Avionics USA conferences and exhibitions. He was a co-founder of the Avionics Europe event held each March in Amsterdam, Netherlands.

David, the former editor-in-chief of Avionics Magazine and Aviation Maintenance Magazine, has more than 25 years experience in aviation journalism. He was also managing editor and then editor of Rotor & Wing, covering the helicopter industry. Briefly, he also served as editorial director for the Magazine Group at Phillips Publishing, now Access Intelligence.

David's first article for us will be on DO-254 certification issues for avionics hardware and will appear next month on our website and e-newsletter.

I'm looking forward to working with David, his in-depth experience and knowledge of aviation and journalism will be a huge asset to Avionics Intelligence.

Very cool helicopter avionics technology showcased at AUSA

Posted by John McHale

New helicopter technology was definitely creating a buzz at the Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) annual Meeting in Washington this week, as Boeing released its new AH-6i helicopter and Sikorsky parked a version of its Light Tactical Helicopter between the convention center and the Renaissance Hotel.
New helicopter technology was definitely creating a buzz at the Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) annual Meeting in Washington this week, as Boeing released its new AH-6i helicopter and Sikorsky parked a version of its Light Tactical Helicopter between the convention center and the Renaissance Hotel.

I took a seat in the LTH and learned that the primary objective of the aircraft is speed. Sikorsky is looking to eventually approach 250 knots while at the same time being a fully functional helicopter. They did not have a full avionics system in the model at AUSA, because they are still developing the cockpit systems, which could end up as a traditional cockpit display or have all the functionality placed in a head-up avionics display.

Boeing's AH-6i uses much of the avionics software and avionics hardware from the company's Apache Block III upgrade, which is still being developed with another test flight scheduled later this fall.

Boeing hopes that the AH-6i will be what the Army is looking for as it resets its Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter requirements. The first ARH program -- that was under development with Bell Helicopter -- was canceled a year ago.

In the cockpit demonstrator that Boeing had at their booth they were showcasing avionics technology still in development such as voice control. Essentially Boeing engineers are designing an avionics system that allows pilots to control communications, targeting, etc., all with their voice.

It lets pilots focus more on what's outside the cockpit, rather than having to push various buttons on the display, company officials told me.

Electronic flight bag -- a taboo phrase?

Posted by John McHale

During conversations I've had recently with several experts on avionics systems on our Avionics Europe Conference Advisory Board and with electronic flight bag (EFB) designers, I've learned that EFB is more and more becoming a bad word with airline procurement managers.
During conversations I've had recently with several experts on avionics systems on our Avionics Europe Conference Advisory Board and with electronic flight bags (EFBs) designers, I've learned that EFB is more and more becoming a bad word with airline procurement managers.

Apparently avionics engineers at airlines are having a hard time justifying purchase of EFB Class 1 and Class 2 products just to enable a paperless cockpit.

Bill Ruhl, marketing manager for Astronautics in Milwaukee, Wis., told me that this hurts the retrofit market. The FAA is allowing new functionality such as airport moving maps on Class 2 EFBs has helped in this area, but it is becoming more of a competitive and cultural problem than one of capability, he said. The larger airlines do not want their pilots to be able to take the EFBs -- loaded with sensitive company data -- off the airplane, Ruhl said.

This is also why EFB designers have been adding more capability top the products, Ruhl said. They have evolved beyond the original EFB concept. He noted that Astronautics likes to call their systems single processor or dual processor solutions as opposed to EFB, because they go beyond the original concept in terms of capability.

During our Advisory Board meeting last week the members echoed these comments and for next year we decided not to have a stand alone session just on EFBs, but rather one called "Cost Efficient Avionics -- EFBs and Beyond."

Yes, we left EFBS in there because quite frankly it was one of our best attended sessions last year in Amsterdam -- despite the fact that we placed it the end of the conference, when attendance can lag.

UAVs sharing civilian airspace

Posted by John McHale

One of the topics of discussion this week at the Unmanned Systems North America show in Washington was what needs to be done technologically and culturally to manage the growing use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in civilian airspace.

One of the topics of discussion this week at the Unmanned Systems North America show in Washington was what needs to be done technologically and culturally to manage the growing use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in civilian airspace.

The key is to take a proactive air traffic management approach instead of reacting to problems such as collision avoidance, David Vos, senior director of Unmanned Airborne Systems and Control Technologies for Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, told me today.

The biggest challenge will not be technological or bureaucratic, but rather cultural, Vos said. Many in the commercial aircraft industry do not understand unmanned systems and they need to realize they are not just toys or model airplanes, he added.

In a presentation he made at the show this week Vos said that "as the need for civil UAVs increases and airspace continues to crowd, the NextGen (Next generation Air Traffic Management System), SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research), and increased automation are essential."

Vos also says those concerned must understand the rules as determined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Eurocontrol.

If there comes a time when the Department of Homeland Security needs to use UAVs over New York City, they must have an open dialogue with commercial airspace authorities.

UAVs are not going to decrease in numbers, they are here to stay and in the long run will be more economical than manned aircraft, Vos said.

He predicted that there will come a day when commercial passenger flights are pilotless much the same way some trains are today.

Once people become more comfortable with the concept, the UAV business will explode.

Unmanned systems show is buzzing

Posted by John McHale

What a difference a year makes. Last year's Unmanned Systems North America show in San Diego was informative and well attended but seemed to be reflecting some of that Southern California June gloom. This year it's just the opposite with packed stands and busy aisles.

What a difference a year makes. Last year's Unmanned Systems North America show in San Diego was informative and well attended but seemed to be reflecting some of that Southern California June gloom. This year it's just the opposite with packed stands and busy aisles.

Maybe it's the fact that it is in Washington where unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), undmanned ground vehicles, and unmanned undersea vehicles attract more government and definitely more local press.

Highlights at the event include General Atomics discussing the new Predator C Avenger, iRobot officials announcing more orders for the Packbot unmanned ground system, and Insitu’s ScanEagle surpassing 200,000 operational flight hours.

"In a year when people are wondering where the funding will come from funding for unmanned systems is one are that is definitely going up,"” one defense electronics supplier told me.

Every exhibitor I've talked to says traffic is strong and people are looking to spend money for autonomous programs.

Lots of non-traditional defense companies are also angling for a piece of the action. Sony, the maker of popular camcorders and televisions and monitors had a nice sized booth at the show.

No they weren't pushing flat screens, but rather they were showcasing their machine vision line of high-performance cameras for use on UAVs.

It's a market "we're exploring that has a potential for growth," says Drew Buttress, product manager for visual imaging products at Sony. He says Sony understands the military market and its long life cycles and that Sony supports its machine vision products for the long-term, still selling cameras that are nearly 10 years old.

It's heartening to go to a crowded trade show in a tough economic time. Maybe it's sign things are turning around.