Having previously worked in avionics I'm a little annoyed that many of the things he complains about are a combination of overstrict FAA rules and the immense cost required for certification for some of the functionality he wants. For instance, you can't warn for terrain unless you're level A certified on almost all airframes - and there's a differences between TAWS A, which lets you warn with "Terrain - Pull Up" and TAWS B, where you can only warn with "Terrain". Approach plates require level B certification as well, although for some reason the FAA lets some people get away with releasing them for iPads with no certification whatsoever (they generally have a disclaimer about "not for navigation purposes" but the FAA used to frown upon that sort of thing).

There was a collision on a runway a while ago that we passed around the news article for, because it could have very easily been prevented by features we had, but were not certified for the airframes that had the collision. It's understandable that we want to ensure that the new glass works just as well as old instruments, but it's frustrating when customers very clearly want functionality that we're not allowed to provide.

This is why experimental airplanes often have far superior avionics these days: you can put anything you want in one, without any certification. The result is cheaper and better alternatives.

I believe there are efforts underway to change the rules to avoid this "making the perfect the enemy of the good" effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Airplane_Revitalization_A...

That's interesting. Not sure if it's a "jurisdiction" thing, as in if it's a part of the airplane, they go into the certification regime?

For instance, laptop PCs running Windows and iPads are certified for EFB use now (I would assume for approach plates as well), but I'm not sure what the limitations are, or what certification level that is.

Btw, what did you work on in avionics, and what made you move to a different area of work?