Many aircraft owners and operators have asked, "Why can't avionics systems on my aircraft subscribe to the innovative design principles of my cell phone?" This common revelation is driven by the fact that cell phones are typically characterized as cheap, yet powerful electronic devices that drive the leading edge of technology. In contrast Avionics are typically characterized as the polar opposite: expensive electronic devices that are based on old, previous-generation technology.This paper explores the cell phone product model and compares it to the avionics product model. The objective is to highlight concepts that can drive avionics innovation as well as to highlight the fundamental differences between avionics and consumer electronics products.The most notable product in the cell phone market today is the Apple iPhone(1). The iPhone is a successful, transformational cell phone product that has changed the cell phone market. It provides a good case study since there is a lot of data available for this product. The question is to identify how that technological success can be applied to an avionics product. To this end, the iPhone is compared to Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA), which has also been a game changer. Both products provide a general processing platform that has redefined their respective industries. This comparison aims to highlight lessons learned from the iPhone success that can drive IMA product success. In addition, the comparison aims to highlight the differences between the products to explain why an avionics system is more expensive and larger in size than a consumer electronics product such as a cell phone.

System architects are accustomed to developing systems hosted in federated environments that allow for developmental independence. However the system boundaries are different when systems are hosted in an Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) platform. The boundaries lie within shared resources, and thus lead to greater dependencies between systems. This drives new design considerations for system architects. The natural tendency is to leverage traditional federated design concepts when building systems for IMA environments, but this can lead to inefficient use of system resources, and a lack of preparedness for the inevitable change that will occur within the integrated set of systems. IMA has become a standard in the civil and military aviation industries, so it is important to understand these new design considerations.The question addressed by this paper is "What unique design considerations are there for systems hosted on an IMA platform?" All of the considerations can be attributed to three main drivers present in the IMA environment: (1) optimization of system resources across the integrated set of hosted systems, (2) change containment when hosted systems change and (3) change containment when the IMA platform elements change (technology insertion).These three factors impact the traditional developmental independence between systems since it requires the architect to consider their system's role within the integrated set of systems. They must now consider how they will tolerate changes that are out of their control, such as changes to other hosted systems or the IMA platform that affect the shared resource performance. They must now consider how they contribute to the efficient use of system resources as part of the greater system-wide optimization strategy. If these factors are not addressed, then it can lead to wasted system resources, increased development costs, and high costs-of-change. Therefore the incentive to ensure that these new design considerations are addressed lies with both the system integrator who owns the integrated set of systems and the architect of each hosted system.This paper is based upon the authors' experience in developing IMA systems at GE Aviation. GE Aviation has developed open system IMA architectures for commercial aircraft (Boeing 787 Dreamliner), as well as military aircraft (Boeing C-130 combat aircraft, and Boeing KC-767 Tanker).

This paper identifies considerations for transitioning from a federated avionics architecture to an integrated modular avionics (IMA) architecture. Federated avionics architectures make use of distributed avionics functions that are packaged as self-contained units (LRUs and LRMs). IMA architectures employ a high-integrity, partitioned environment that hosts multiple avionics functions of different criticalities on a shared computing platform. This provides for weight and power savings since computing resources can be used more efficiently. This paper establishes the benefits of transitioning to IMA. To aid in the planning process, the paper also identifies factors to consider before transitioning to IMA. The approach to resource management (computing, communication, and I/O) is identified as the fundamental architectural difference between federated and IMA systems. The paper describes how this difference changes the development process and benefits the systems integrator. This paper also addresses misconceptions about the resource management mechanisms that can occur during a transition to IMA and concludes that resources are not inherently constrained by IMA architectures. Guidance is provided for transitioning to both "open" and "closed" IMA architectures. Open IMA architectures utilize open interface standards that are available in the public domain. Closed IMA architectures utilize proprietary interfaces that can be customized. The analysis of these avionics architectures is based upon the authors' experience in developing platform computing systems at GE Aviation. GE Aviation has developed open system IMA architectures for commercial aircraft (Boeing 787 Dreamliner), as well as military aircraft (Boeing C-130 combat aircraft, and Boeing KC-767 Tanker).