The EFB paradox

- More cockpit sophistication boosts the demand for EFBs -

Gone are the days where avionics of an helicopter could be described as that part of the aircraft which is not needed to fly.

Even for highly integrated military rotorcraft in the early 2000s, the avionic system has been for a long time a convenience feature for flight crew or a mission related feature, which could always be shut down to continue a pleasant flight under visual flight rules.

For better or worse (this is something still to be determined) helicopter avionic system has become a fundamental part of any new helicopter at the same level of relevance as a rotor blade or a main gear box (obvious exceptions are recreational rotorcraft). Well-known back-up instruments have been replaced by large multi-functional touch-sensitive displays.

It is certainly not clear whether this change has been driven by operators demanding improved pilot-interface friendliness and integration with other sub-systems, or whether commercial pressure from industry to renew the product offering has triggered the large investments to develop and certify highly integrated helicopter platforms with the avionics. In the end, what matters is the result of an industry that has transformed its helicopter platforms into complex system architectures with futuristic cockpit appearances.

Advantages in safety, comfort, training, direct operating costs and serviceability coming along are undeniable. In turn, higher complexity combined with highest safety and certification requirements for the avionic system has created new barriers to small and mid-sized suppliers of avionic equipment to survive in the market, unless they enter into asymmetrical partnership agreements with large industry leaders in avionic sub-systems (we could use here the French word systémier): Thales, Rockwell Collins, Garmin, etc. Even powerful helicopter manufacturers such as Airbus, Leonardo or Bell are taking the risk of letting avionic system grow in relevance, which leads eventually to an increasing dependency to these systémiers.

Leaving aside the strategic considerations of industry stakeholders in their battle for market share and competitive advantage, what do all these changes in helicopter avionics mean for down-to-earth users and operators?

Behind the evident added functional features for flight and ground crew and the friendlier user interface, hide the typical downsides of highly integrated systems.

To start with, there is a reduced capacity of operators to understand the internal functioning of their avionic system or even to adjust or customize some of the functions by themselves. This is because they have to treat the whole system for safety reasons nearly as a “black box”.

Rather sooner than later the first nasty surprise arrives when the “diagnosis tool” reporting some kind of code like F-CKU27 requires the “complete module” to be replaced before next flight. Latest at this point we all start yearning for the old simple aircraft we used to repair only by replacing the failed part, and nothing else.

Shortly after the selling argument of “low operating costs” shows its first cracks, limitations in versatility of highly integrated avionics is evidenced by the technical complexity, long lead-times and prohibitive costs to introduce custom upgrades or adaptations in the manner information is processed, displayed, stored and/or transmitted to external terminals. Considering the fact that nearly 85% of all worldwide helicopter users operate 4 or less aircraft, it is very unlikely for an end-user to build a case for investing in an avionics upgrade in such a small fleet.

Don’t get me wrong. This is not a manifesto against technological progress, but simply the appraisal that technology and, in particular, its operational application moves like a wave: going up and down while strolling forward.

Helicopter users, probably content with their new technically superior acquisition, will try to make the most out of it and look for the opportunities and loopholes to increase operational capability and save money at the same time. This means in practical terms that there is a breeding ground for new opportunities to enhance and customize cockpit functionalities without modifying the complex and costly helicopter avionics.

It is no secret that the small industry behind the EFB enjoys since years a flourishing development, and expectations for the future remain high. The regulatory framework provided through FAA Advisory Circulars 120-76 “Guidelines for the Certification, Airworthiness, and Operational Use of EFB” and 20-173 “Installation of EFB Components” brings light and clarity about the requirements to be fulfilled and fosters the growth of EFB market on rotorcraft. Specially, Class 2 EFBs are defined as commercial off-the-shelf hardware, like any Apple or Samsung tablet, which can be used in flight by flight crew without the need of FAA approval.

The absence of a certification process to be undergone and the possibility to incorporate SW upgrades on the EFB without delay are the main reasons why EFB solutions are such a great value for helicopter operator’s money.

There is a niche for low-cost, highly customizable piloting support functions which is being rediscovered.

It is indeed paradoxical that the shift towards an integrated avionic architecture is nourishing the demand for cockpit accessories like the EFB which were supposed to disappear with the arrival of sophisticated new generation cockpits.