Which AHRS / EFIS are you using?

OK, We've now got Dynon, BMA, Chelton, GRT and a couple of others. I'm interested in some feedback from those of you that are flying already and have these units installed. I'm particularly looking for feedback from people that fly IFR.

Personally I am interested in the cheaper end of town; Dynon, BMA lite and GRT. Dynon do not recommend their EFIS for IFR flight. BMA do. Are either up to the task? I know that there are already some people that trust them.

Also, what about the autopilots? If I understand correctly these units have the equivelent of an AHARS as well. Do you trust your autopilot not to flip you on your head?

Richard

In my RV-7 with 836 hours I have a Dynon EFIS-D10 (already an oldie, but a goodie) and I fly IFR with it. Not a lot of IFR, but enough that the Dynon has earned my trust. I've had the D10 in there since day one. I have no backup gyros. Just a few backup steam gauges (airspeed/altimeter/VSI).

I have a TruTrak Pictorial Pilot (2.25"). Have also had a Digitrak and a 3.125" Pictorial Pilot (upgraded then cross-graded). All good stuff.

I don't see the point in spending tons of money on a fancy setup unless you're gonna fly a ton of IFR. I see some really posh panels on planes that fly 50-100 hours per year and no IFR. I don't get it. The RV is a "look outside" plane. When looking inside my plane, I want low workload, which is why I splurged on a consolidated engine monitor package with voice warnings and the best, easiest to read display out there (AF-2500). I know some people look at my panel and think I'm nuts for putting all the toys in there that I did, but I honestly consider my panel modest for a plane that flies over 400 hours per year.

Just ordered a BMA G4 sport and G4 Lite with BMA Autopilot for my net project. Been flying a BMA EFIS One and EFIS Lite with BMA autopilot for over 350hrs. Love and trust them implicitly.

I have a BMA EFIS one and a Dynon D10a for UPS uninterupted power service on the right.

I REALLY like the EFIS one for VFR and marginal VFR. Great attitude Indicator and HSI display-- like the Lites.

I have teething problems right now with me and the E1, bouncing along and can't program stuff, can't see a VOR 10 miles from the MAP. without a cluttered display-- could be me, though.

but like i said, with the terrain display with red clearance for altitude; the E1 has enstilled (sp?) a confidence that's hard to verbalize.

The Dynon has been spot on since day one and I would trust it for flying actual and I'd put a post it over the BMA right now. (but I need an update etc.)

D10a-- the altimeter impressed the tech that did the Pitot static check too.
accurate within 50ft. all the way to 20,0.

and I look outside-- two times now, I've done (diving) low approaches and I don't have a clue how fast I'm going-- I'm looking outside !!!

for less expensive, isn't the BMA the nicest looking display at this time?

FWIW



Dynon D10a for the passenger

Grt

This is a good thread - gives folks a chance to tell a little about how they like their units in the real world. Of course, you are unlikely to get much in the way of comparisons, cause there are probably very few folks who have actually installed and flown more than one of the systems, but in terms of single system feedback, you should get some good info!

I am flying with the Dual GRT EFIS, and am extremely happy with it. It is highly reliable, built by folks with a lot of experience in aerospace. The company support for hardware and software is excellent, with software upgrades coming about every six months, and still free! They just added Terrain this month - a huge bonus feature that was never promised - just suddenly appeared. I guess that tells me more than anything about the company - they are interested in getting a good product out there,with the features people want.

I have not had a single in-flight problem with any part of the system in four months and 115 hours of flying. The screens are very readable, and the functions very intuitive. The system is designed to work well with an IFR certitified Nav source, and does not try to be everything in one box - rather, it is designed to be a stable platform, air data system, and display for your GPS.

Redundancy and reliablility are top-notch, with the boxes designed for multiple power feeds. I use a Trutrak Pictoral Pilot as a backup platform/display/autopilot, and trust both it and the EFIS to do their jobs.

I haven't flown any of the other systems mentioned here, but the GRT compares favorably with certified systems I have flown, as well as with some experimental technologies I have flown in aerospace applications. Rather than compare and rate the GRT to the other Homebuilt options, I will sinmply tell you that I find the GRT EFIS to be reliable, highly capable, and a tremendous value.

Paul

This thread should give some insight on Chelton and GRT.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=5925

Grt

Richard,
I've got a little over 130 hours on my 7A with about 10% of those in actual IFR conditions. The dual screen GRT EFIS has been very reliable and a pleasure to fly IFR. The TruTrak Digiflight IIVSGV autopilot has also been very solid. I have a AP NAV source switch that connects the ARINC A/B to the Garmin 430 or the EFIS. It will follow a flight plan from the 430. I put the switch in just incase the EFIS went belly up, at least the AP could still follow the 430 flight plan.
The reality is the AP NAV switch is always connected to the EFIS. The flight plan entered on the 430 passes through the EFIS to the AP. Switching from HDG to NAV mode is just a button push on the EFIS. One nice feature is selecting the altitude and vertical speed on the EFIS, the information is sent to the AP via the ARINC A/B. Flying single pilot IFR this is a nice feature. This works really well for NP approach step down altitudes also. When getting vectored onto the final approach course for an ILS just set the EFIS to HDG mode and select ARM ILS. As the plane approaches the final approach course the EFIS switches to NAV mode and captures the approach, at the appropriate time it also captures the Glideslope.

When flying IFR I usually have the second screen displaying NEXRAD weather via their XM weather module. All in all I think GRT offers a great package.

Take care
Gary

Grt

Adam,
I've read the tread and enjoyed the comments from all sides.
Richard was asking about real world IFR feedback from those who are flying behind the "cheaper end of town" equipment. Granted only 10% of my flying to date has been actual IFR but within that time and many hours of simulated IFR the GRT EFIS has been a solid, simple platform. I am also partners in a Commander 114, it's set up with a Garmin 430, STec 60-2 with altitude preselect, Sandel HSI and several other goodies.

My feedback to Richard is based on the 2 planes I fly IFR, hands down the GRT EFIS (most likely any EFIS) is a nicer IFR platform.

Regards,
Gary

anybody have a handle on what these EFIS with an auto-pilot cost in the different configurations? ie. I need an Auto-pilot for another project- thinking tru trak or BMA auto pilot. Not sure about displays yet.

So-- BMA G4 9K plus another 5K for A/P ?

BMA G4 9K with tru trak-- 6K for A/P ?

GRT? with tru trak????

EFIS/Autopilot

mark manda said:

...thinking tru trak or BMA auto pilot...

Click to expand...

You've probably already considered this, but I'd be a bit nervous flying single pilot IFR with the EFIS and AP as one unit. Integration is great, but if my EFIS goes TU, having the AP to fall back on to at least keep the wings level while I'm using both hands to find my a-- would be nice.

actually I hadn't thought of that. My BMA fails-- immediately the auto pilot drops out and I figure the back up EFIS and me keeps me straight and level.... thanks for input.

so stick a trutrak that's coupled to both EFIS?

EFIS and AP

mark manda said:

...so stick a trutrak that's coupled to both EFIS?

Click to expand...

Personally I've got a Trio which will be hooked up to the GRT Sport and a Garmin handheld, later the GNS480 replacement, whenever that comes out. The nice thing about the Trio, the Trutrak, and other standalone APs is that even if you lose your entire panel, including EFIS units, the AP will keep your wings level. Of course, if you lose the panel because you've lost electricity, that's another story. In any case, there are very few pilots that can fly as well as a modern AP, particularly partial panel.

My BMA fails-- immediately the auto pilot drops out

Click to expand...

This has been a concern for me also. I am running a BMA Lite and EFIS one with the AP off the EFIS ONE. Recently upgraded the Lite to a G3 Lite. Fabricated a small panel that takes care of the AP going TU with the EFIS one and solved where to put heat and air along with how to update and calibrate the EFISs without crawling under the panel.

Photo below is of a bracket that will go forward of fuel valve and joystick (on the tunnel.)

It holds heat and air vents and plugs to program each EFIS as well as plug in the keyboards for calibration The center Jack goes to the AP controller, left jack to EFIS One and R ight Jack to EFIS Lite. In normal ops there will be a patch cable from R to center running the AP from EFIS one. If a problem arises the patch cable is repositioned from L to center driving the AP from the EFIS Lite.

[/URL][/IMG]

GRT for me (currently)

My initial panel started out all electric with steam gages except for the AI and DG which were replaced by BMA G3 Lites. I'm comfortable with the standard six but wanted solid state gyros and and EHSI. After hearing about all the installation tweaking and the Herculean efforts required by their support staff to get basic installations to function, I decided to look elsewhere.

Panel Iterations

My initial impression of Grand Rapids EFIS was that the display was clunky ala IBM PC CGA. After getting the manual and looking into the functionality however, I reconsidered and incorporated it into my panel design. It has every function I require even if the graphics are a bit clunky. If you look at the F-22 fighter cockpit, even they put a premium on data dispaly rather than pretty pictures.

I've looked at the Chelton but for me it is missing some things *I* want and is MUCH more expensive. Aside from the higher resolution and Synthetic Vision (which I think will encourage a lot of dangerous scud running), I don't see anything else that the Chelton's offer that the GRT's don't. If you fly IFR, the rules are such that you should NOT be getting into situation where Synthetic Vision will be of much value. It may be of value of you do a lot of VFR scud running however.

Just my opinion, YMMV.

Triple GPS

w1curtis said:

....Panel Iterations...

Click to expand...

I don't think you'll ever get lost with your three GPS systems!

Differences - Oh, no, here we go again.

w1curtis said:

I've looked at the Chelton but for me it is missing some things *I* want and is MUCH more expensive. Aside from the higher resolution and Synthetic Vision (which I think will encourage a lot of dangerous scud running), I don't see anything else that the Chelton's offer that the GRT's don't. If you fly IFR, the rules are such that you should NOT be getting into situation where Synthetic Vision will be of much value. It may be of value of you do a lot of VFR scud running however.

Just my opinion, YMMV.

Click to expand...

William,

I honestly don't understand your comment about synthetic vision. IFR is exactly the place that you would *want* synthetic vision with HITS. If I'm in the crud, I most certainly want to know where the cumulogranite is!!! (traffic, obstacles as well). As for HITS, from what I've heard, it's much easier to fly an IFR approach with HITS, than trying to fly one with the needles. Also, the synthetic vision *also* displays the runways, so when you are on an approach down to mins, at DA(H), you look out if, you don't see the runway, where the SV is projecting it to be, you do the missed. All of this data goes along way towards safety... Can it be misused, certainly, but I think SV is a *must* for IFR, and not only for VFR.

As for VFR scud running, it's simply illegal (cloud minimum separation, etc), so why would you ever put yourself in that postition anyway.

I would be curious what it's missing that *you* want. What it has over the GRT is just about too much to list, but I'll hit the high points.

- TAWS warnings
- A full cautionary warning system
- Terrain complete with shadowing and terrain warnings
- Range ring and best glide ring
- interface with multiple engine monitor system (EI, GRT, AFS)
- A full Jeppesen database (and it's associated cost for updates if you like)
- Baro-Vnav (this FMS will allow support the GPS LNAV/VNAV approaches, Note I didn't say the GPS would, I'll get to that in a minute)
- Certified code base with 1000's of hours of testing and implementation in STC'd installations
- AN AHRS that includes GPS and AirData computer functions so that Baro-Vnav is correct, that is tested to DO-160e and includes EMI, RFI, lightning testing
- The ability to swap the GPS module in the GADAHRS out for the freelfight WAAS GPS module and you'll have GPS /G filing ability PLUS you'll have support for LNAV/VNAV approaches with Baro-VNAV correction (this is extremely cheaper than buying a 430 or 480) and only requires the same 3 wires to connect it.
- With the Freeflight GPS you have TSO-145a compliance (WAAS GPS compliance - supersedes the need for TSO-129a)
- TSO-146a compliance (this is FMS compliance to WAAS GPS with Baro-VNAV)
- when you have the Freeflight Waas GPS, you are not required to have NAV radios if you like. This is a benefit of of the TSO-145a. Normally in TSO-129a (enroute and terminal GPS TSO), you still have to have "ground based navigation" resourses on board and GPS can only be considered SECONDARY. In TSO-145a/TSO-146a, you no longer have to have NAV radios, the WAAS GPS can be considered PRIMARY - probably not very wise, but doable.
- 640 x 480 display resolution (vs. the 400 x 240 on the GRT's)
- Weather via WSI today and XM soon
- Hardened Magnetometer and AHRS (see the above DO-160 tested notes)
- configurable display, if you don't like the synthetic vision, just turn it off or select the more traditional EFIS look with flight director arrows.
- Obstacles with obstacle display and warnings
- TIS display if you have a tis xponder, and this display not only puts them on the MFD, but also puts them "at altitude" on the 3D display
- 3D display with TIS, obstacles and Terrain. If you don't like HITS, you can turn if off as well
- Full VNAV profile support including VNAV for approaches and GPSV support
- ADS-B support (remember the Chelton is what the FAA used during the CAPSTONE trials for ADS-B)

Oh, I've probably missed a 100 things, but there is really no comparision (on price or features).

Would be curious of what it doesn't have that you need, or what you don't like.

Only 2 GPS

rv8ch said:

I don't think you'll ever get lost with your three GPS systems!

Click to expand...

Actually, there are only 2. I will NOT opt for the optional internal GRT GPS. My primary GPS will be the Garmin 430. The second GPS will be the GPSMAP-396. The SL-30 only has VHF Nav.

The best part is that the competition seems to be heating up big time lately. Next 12-18 months will be very, very interesting (both at high and low ends of the market). New players, new products etc.. a lot more to choose from.

PS. Alan, GRTs new GPS sounds a lot like freeflight to me (spec-wise).. and a few other items on that list are etiher in there or will be there in their new product... all in all, we just have to sit back and watch all this play out

PPS. very surprised that OP Technologies isn't being looked at more (mostly by -10 builders)

aadamson said:

William,

I honestly don't understand your comment about synthetic vision. IFR is exactly the place that you would *want* synthetic vision with HITS. If I'm in the crud, I most certainly want to know where the cumulogranite is!!! (traffic, obstacles as well). As for HITS, from what I've heard, it's much easier to fly an IFR approach with HITS, than trying to fly one with the needles. Also, the synthetic vision *also* displays the runways, so when you are on an approach down to mins, at DA(H), you look out if, you don't see the runway, where the SV is projecting it to be, you do the missed. All of this data goes along way towards safety... Can it be misused, certainly, but I think SV is a *must* for IFR, and not only for VFR.

Click to expand...

The IFR system, enroute airways, MEAs and approach procedures are pretty clear, LEGAL and effective for IFR navigation. Synthetic vision is NOT-nuff said. You follow the procedures, you follow ATC instructions, you will avoid other traffic, obstacles and the, em, cumulogranite -- at least in the IFR system I fly. Certaily the Synthetic vision *may* provide you advisory information, but if you are following the IFR procedures it shouldn't be telling you anything you don't already know. If it is, then you probably need and IPC or a review of Instrument Flight Rules.

Also, I specifically did NOT mention HITS since the GRT also has a version of it and while not as *hi resoultion* as the Chelton, it can be useful for IFR.

aadamson said:

As for VFR scud running, it's simply illegal (cloud minimum separation, etc), so why would you ever put yourself in that postition anyway.

Click to expand...

Well, we all know that people do it non-the-less today with no fancy equipment. Now we add the fancy Synthetic vision, they will feel even more secure in their ignorance of the FARs.

aadamson said:

I would be curious what it's missing that *you* want. What it has over the GRT is just about too much to list, but I'll hit the high points.
..
..
..
Oh, I've probably missed a 100 things, but there is really no comparision (on price or features).

Would be curious of what it doesn't have that you need, or what you don't like.

Click to expand...

Nope--don't see anything I'd be missing between my chosen configuration of the GRT/GNS-430/GPSMAP-396. And that combination is more capable, more certified and less ($5,000) expensive than just a pair of Cheltons. I could respond to each one of the above and why I think each is invalid, however, I don't see the value in the effort.

Oh, man, why do I even try!

w1curtis said:

The IFR system, enroute airways, MEAs and approach procedures are pretty clear, LEGAL and effective for IFR navigation. Synthetic vision is NOT-nuff said. You follow the procedures, you follow ATC instructions, you will avoid other traffic, obstacles and the, em, cumulogranite -- at least in the IFR system I fly. Certaily the Synthetic vision *may* provide you advisory information, but if you are following the IFR procedures it shouldn't be telling you anything you don't already know. If it is, then you probably need and IPC or a review of Instrument Flight Rules.

Click to expand...

Guess you fly in a different IFR system that I do. There is NOTHING ILLEGAL about synthetic vision - if there were, why would Chelton have STC's and certified versions of their panels?

Yes, you follow what you filed, or are told, or what is SAFE. Guess you've never been vectored into terrain? It happens, there are numerous accident reports with it happening. Actually with your analogy, I'm surprised that you'd be flying with a GPS at all.... I mean, it's only certified as secondary for enroute, approach, etc.

An IPC has *nothing* to do with what you fly behind, it has *everything* to do with how you fly.

w1curtis said:

Also, I specifically did NOT mention HITS since the GRT also has a version of it and while not as *hi resoultion* as the Chelton, it can be useful for IFR.
Well, we all know that people do it non-the-less today with no fancy equipment. Now we add the fancy Synthetic vision, they will feel even more secure in their ignorance of the FARs.
Nope--don't see anything I'd be missing between my chosen configuration of the GRT/GNS-430/GPSMAP-396. And that combination is more capable, more certified and less ($5,000) expensive than just a pair of Cheltons.

Click to expand...

How the heck can you make that statement? You are willing to trust the main part of the IFR window - the display to something that is *not* tested to the TSO standards - and you claim that is more *certified*? At least the Chelton both display and code was/is testing to the TSO standards.

With the 430 (you are only capable to TSO-129a) - that means the standard NAV approaches and *only* LNAV only GPS approaches. No LNAV/VNAV or LPV's (precision GPS approaches), and you're GPS equipment *has* to be SECONDARY for navigation. So, when/if they start decommissioning ILS's (and they will btw), you'll have to upgrade and that will cost more money. This *might* change with the WAAS upgrade, who knows if it will require TSO-146a compliance tho.

w1curtis said:

I could respond to each one of the above and why I think each is invalid, however, I don't see the value in the effort.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that I made up the list above? Or are you saying they are "not valid" for you? If you think I made them up, I suspect you *did not* do your homework on the Chelton, because, the "Sport system", the one that us experimental guys use, has all of that list, plus more. Only option that would cost additional money, but is not required unless you want WAAS is the freeflight module 1101 (experimental), 1201 (certified). If they are not valid for you, that just means you prefer to have less functionality, that isn't wrong, it's just what you want. However, prehaps a better word would have been "why I don't need them" instead of "invalid". Each of them *are* absolutely *valid* (meaning they exist).

As someone pointed out to me once. There are lots of people who read this list. I'd hate for someone to walk away thinking that the Chelton and the GRT are equivalent. That just couldn't be further from the truth.

The problem most people have is their starting point. If you want a no frills, basic EFIS system, then there are lots of choices. If you want a feature rich, customizable, tested and proven in certified applications, EFIS then there are a *few* choices. But don't expect to get the later, for the same price as the former and expect there to be significant functionality differences.

I agree but.

Radomir said:

The best part is that the competition seems to be heating up big time lately. Next 12-18 months will be very, very interesting (both at high and low ends of the market). New players, new products etc.. a lot more to choose from.

PS. Alan, GRTs new GPS sounds a lot like freeflight to me (spec-wise).. and a few other items on that list are etiher in there or will be there in their new product... all in all, we just have to sit back and watch all this play out

PPS. very surprised that OP Technologies isn't being looked at more (mostly by -10 builders)

Click to expand...

Radomir, I agree with the need for competition, and there is a bunch of it right now. The next few months will prove interesting. I think it's healthy until companies ask me to be their "flight test" program. Unfortunately, that is what is happening with some vendors.

As for the GRT GPS.... Just be careful, don't be lulled into thinking that it's everything it's cracked up to be. How long has it taken Garmin to get WAAS in a TSO compliant GPS - 3/4 years, and this because they bought UPSAT for that technology. Little known fact, WAAS to comply with TSO-145a/146a requires that the "integrity monitoring" allow for satellite lockouts, for baro corrected altitudes, and for integration in a FMS system.

The one thing that has be either TSO'd or allow you to *prove* that it meets the TSO is the GPS for IFR. Today, you have to have something that meets and complies with TSO-129a (enroute, approach), or TSO-145a/146a (WAAS and WAAS as primary navigation).

The other thing that WAAS certified GPS's have to have to allow for LPV approaches is an increased update interval - 4hz if I remember right. Regular GPS's use a 1hz update I believe

Hardware designs are one thing, proving that you comply with the TSO is entirely another. At least with the FF, it already does.

I do hope there is competition, of all the systems currently, I like the GRT's second best to Chelton. But there is a huge gap in features and that 400x240 display is gonna kill them. Notice that AFS and Dynon released systems with way more display capability than the GRT systems. Also, remember, that increasing the display resolution *and* the color depth also means you have to increase the cpu horsepower. Something has to move pixels and now there are lots more of them with higher resolutions.

aadamson said:

...
a lot of stuff not realated to what I wrote
...
more unrelated stuff
...

Click to expand...

There you go again, reading individual words and not the complete sentences and statements. Maybe it is me. I will endeavour to be more clear in my written communication.

Huh?

w1curtis said:

There you go again, reading individual words and not the complete sentences and statements. Maybe it is me. I will endeavour to be more clear in my written communication.

Click to expand...

Unless I missed something, the title of this thread is "which ahrs/efis are you using". So I do believe *all* of this is specifically applicable to the topic at hand.

BTW, Where the heck did that "quote" from me come from? It's certainly *NOT* a quote from me and does not exist in this thread?

Here are your complete sentences. Each of which I replied to, including asking clarifiying questions. If you don't want the information, then don't read it and reply. If you post info that is inaccurate about something that I own and know and have spent the time researching, I'm going to offer an alternative view. But let's not resort to uncivil discussions. If I said something that is incorrect, why don't you try to show me where I did? It's happened before and I'm sure will happen again. But to just say what I wrote was "invalid"... I don't know how to interpret that?

w1curtis said:

The IFR system, enroute airways, MEAs and approach procedures are pretty clear, LEGAL and effective for IFR navigation. Synthetic vision is NOT-nuff said.

Certaily the Synthetic vision *may* provide you advisory information, but if you are following the IFR procedures it shouldn't be telling you anything you don't already know. If it is, then you probably need and IPC or a review of Instrument Flight Rules.

Nope--don't see anything I'd be missing between my chosen configuration of the GRT/GNS-430/GPSMAP-396. And that combination is more capable, more certified and less ($5,000) expensive than just a pair of Cheltons.

I could respond to each one of the above and why I think each is invalid, however, I don't see the value in the effort.

Click to expand...

You wrote each of those sentences. I don't think they are very hard to understand and yet you post something from me that is no-where to be found in this thread?

I'm just really confused now?

aadamson said:

I'm just really confused now?

Click to expand...

Well I guess I failed miserably at trying to be more clear in my communication. I did not want to repeat you entire non-sequitur so I paraphrased. Didn't think it needed an explanation.

Guess we found it.

w1curtis said:

Well I guess I failed miserably at trying to be more clear in my communication. I did not want to repeat you entire non-sequitur so I paraphrased. Didn't think it needed an explanation.

Click to expand...

Is this about getting in the last word?..... Ok, you win. I believe my responses will speak for themselves.... If not, the other members on the forums will help me out, your comments certainly did not.

Could you two take this into the private area?

The thread was "Which AHRS/EFIS are you using?", not my dawg is bigger than your dawg.

Hard Knox said:

The thread was "Which AHRS/EFIS are you using?", not my dawg is bigger than your dawg.

Click to expand...

Thanks Robbie,

If is said "I'm using the Chelton Sport and here's why" - read above, does that do it?

Besides, Dawgs are only Georgia and they didn't do very well last year, course, I don't follow them anyway ....

Point taken however. Wasn't really trying to play the Dawg game, just provide information. However, I can see how it might be construed to a Dawg discussion...

Apologies offered.

Three screen Grand Rapids. Duel Horizon I series and single GRT Sport with it's own seperate AHRS as a backup.

Russ Daves
N710RV (Reserved) hope to fly by June, 2006

Question?

dav1111 said:

Three screen Grand Rapids. Duel Horizon I series and single GRT Sport with it's own seperate AHRS as a backup.

Russ Daves
N710RV (Reserved) hope to fly by June, 2006

Click to expand...

Russ, are they shipping the Sport yet? How did the final feature set finally end? Last I saw on the Yahoo group, there was some "good" feature creap occuring with the sport?

I have a dual GRT Sport on order... but they're not shipping 'em yet. A realistic guess is another 2 months.. maybe sooner.

PS. I was talking about the *new* GRT GPS that simply sounds like re-packaged Freeflight to me.. with 5Hz updates, TSO, RAIM, WAAS etc... all the specs look just like freeflight.. (it's not available from GRT yet though).

they mentioned they'll be working on the high end unit next that would further compete with chelton.. will have higher res etc.. but that's some ways out..

Very good

Radomir said:

I have a dual GRT Sport on order... but they're not shipping 'em yet. A realistic guess is another 2 months.. maybe sooner.

PS. I was talking about the *new* GRT GPS that simply sounds like re-packaged Freeflight to me.. with 5Hz updates, TSO, RAIM, WAAS etc... all the specs look just like freeflight.. (it's not available from GRT yet though).

they mentioned they'll be working on the high end unit next that would further compete with chelton.. will have higher res etc.. but that's some ways out..

Click to expand...

Hmm, perhaps they are licensing the FF design? Could be I guess. I did stop by their booth and talked to some others about their WAAS design, they did feel that some of might be "licensed"..... But again, time will tell.

Like I said, if I didn't have a Chelton, I'd have a GRT. I like the company, and I expecially like the fact that they don't make me feel like I have to be the "test pilot" on the "code of the week". ...

I got an excellent deal on my Chelton package and I know the guys out there personally so yes, I'm a big advocate.

ouch

Man, this thread makes my head hurt; I fly 737s for a living, dual IRS/GPS/FMC/autopilots/autothrottle, etc... but I'm still wondering what language are you guys speaking. Too high tech for me.

I think I'm gonna like my KX-125 nav/com and GPS-296 just fine; simple and cheap works for me.

w1curtis said:

The IFR system, enroute airways, MEAs and approach procedures are pretty clear, LEGAL and effective for IFR navigation. Synthetic vision is NOT-nuff said. You follow the procedures, you follow ATC instructions, you will avoid other traffic, obstacles and the, em, cumulogranite -- at least in the IFR system I fly. Certaily the Synthetic vision *may* provide you advisory information, but if you are following the IFR procedures it shouldn't be telling you anything you don't already know. If it is, then you probably need and IPC or a review of Instrument Flight Rules.

Click to expand...

Saying that synthetic vision would not be of real benefit in IMC for situational awareness is an argument that borders on the absurd.

And what about AFS

I have been reading all your posts, although I have to admit I didn't pay much attention when we got into the Chelton discussion, too rich for my blood. I haven't seen anyone talking about the AFS EFIS - is it too new for anyone to have any information on it? I have read through their web site, I love the displays, but they are a bit vague on information. Do they interface the same as the GRT? I had been planning on the dual screen GRT, but the display from AFS is more what I had in mind.

So, bottom line, is anyone running the AFS and would like to throw in their two cents? Or do I have to wait and see it at OSH?

Stewart

Please look OUT the windshield

Bob Barrow said:

Saying that synthetic vision would not be of real
benefit in IMC for situational awareness is an argument that borders on
the absurd.

Click to expand...

Bob, I know where you are coming from.

NASA has studied "Synthetic Vision"; In a nut shell it's a 3D representation
as IF looking out the window on a clear VFR day with unlimited visibility.
The main advantage is situational awareness on low visibility days and
keeping airplanes from flying into the ground.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/SynthVision.h tml

Obviously useful for IFR or even VFR, but its not NEEDED. I get the other
Gent's comment. If you fly the approach properly you should not hit
anything. However ground or terrain data will increase situational awareness
and save some CFIT accidents (Controlled Flight into Terrain), just like GPWS
(Ground Prox Warning System) did when introduced over two decade's ago.

My RV will have the best Flight Display called: FCMM-3D-WAV-FD:
Full Color Moving Map-3D-Wrap Around Vision-Flight Display.

PLEASE LOOK OUT OF YOUR'S SO YOU DON'T RUN INTO ME.

I am afraid all these fancy displays will have more pilots flying heads-down
and UP their.........EFIS.

Early EFIS was just a glass representation of steam gages. Now many jet
EFIS can display terrain. Push a button, turn on terrain much like the Garmin
396 now has. You see 2D terrain contour near or above your altitude in
differnet shades of color. Of course the "Synthetic Vision" is a whole new
way to display data.

Do you need this to fly IFR? No, of course not.

I just wounder if the pilot will overwhelmed with all the data. What do you
NEED to know to fly the plane safely. ON the EFIS I fly sometimes I turn
all the extra data off to concentrate on the basics: Attitude, Power, Airspeed
and NAV.

Now they are equipping some G-IV's with outside IR cameras which work with
the HUD (heads up display), showing views which essentially let you see thru
low visibility, like Superman X-ray vision. (Oh no, someone will be putting
HUD/IR into there RV next .)

I am amazed at the money some spend on the latest panel display. I am
putting the basics in my RV and looking out the canopy. That is the fun part.
If I hit something hard with out synthetic vision, than I guess it's my fault.
However my next GPS will have terrain, however may panel is pretty homely
compared to some of these deals; Heck the B757 is plan compared.

Happy Easter

George ATP/CFI

Prolly too new

7pilot said:

I have been reading all your posts, although I have to admit I didn't pay much attention when we got into the Chelton discussion, too rich for my blood. I haven't seen anyone talking about the AFS EFIS - is it too new for anyone to have any information on it? I have read through their web site, I love the displays, but they are a bit vague on information. Do they interface the same as the GRT? I had been planning on the dual screen GRT, but the display from AFS is more what I had in mind.

So, bottom line, is anyone running the AFS and would like to throw in their two cents? Or do I have to wait and see it at OSH?

Stewart

Click to expand...

I saw both sizes at SNF. Right now they are sorta basic EFIS systems. There are promises of advancement and given their track record, I'm sure it will happen. They do have one of the brightest displays, and the integration with the 2500 is very nice.

Perhaps this wholes discussion would be better served if we talked in terms of EFIS, and FMS. Some of the systems will just be EFIS systems and some will become full blown FMS system. Of course some will end up in the middle too. There most likely is a natural continum that exists between one and other as well, with a matching feature matrix along that continum.

If I can offer an opinion on George's observation about "heads down". I've been flying behing a G1000 now for almost 2 years. I *did* have the problem to start with, mostly cuz I was *learning* the system. Once I got past the learning curve, I find I've become a "glancer" but not a "fixater". The wonderful thing about your brain is, it's the best processor of "glancing" information.

When im VFR, my head is out the window. I really only look "in" when I'm at a Waypoint, or see traffic on the TIS display prior to ATC letting me know, or to make a power or flight configuration adjustment or to change the radio channel on the built in XM radio

When I'm IMC, I much prefer all the available information to help me stay out of trouble.

First, I'll preface with the maxim that "in matters of opinion, debate is pointless." Consider this just *my* opinion.

In responding to the thread "Which AHRS/EFIS are you using?", I outlined what my past and current choices are and why. I have no "dawg" in the fight since I have not bought anything yet. I do not know anyone at any of the companies and I'm not getting anything for free or reduced prices. Some, clearly do have a "dawg" in the fight and so are more passionate about their "dawgs."

Now, about this Synthetic Vision thing.

Bob Barrow said:

Saying that synthetic vision would not be of real benefit in IMC for situational awareness is an argument that borders on the absurd.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure it would be a benefit in IMC, just minimal benefit IFR--do you see the difference? This is why I think it will encourage dangerous scud running. Heads-down on an MVFR day not looking out for traffic or that 1000 ft. antenna that was just installed the week before, not in the database.

For your statement I can infer one of the following; you do not fly IFR; or, you do fly IFR but you are uncomfortable with the whole idea of mucking about in the clouds. Synthetic Vision is only one way to depict terrain information, not the only, or in my opinion, the best with current technology. I may be wrong on this but, as far as I can see it does not depict traffic, only terrain.

In a typical IFR flight you,
-plan the flight, (ensuring obstacle clearances in departure, en-route and arrival-do we really need to review the FARs on this?)
-file a flight plan
-receive clearance for flight plan (may be as filed or as ATC wishes)
-Depart using SID or ATC instructions
-climb to en-route altitude and resume own navigation.
-Arrive using STAR or ATC instructions
-Follow procedures for approach-which if flow correctly ensures obstacle clearances

So, assuming I have a moving map with terrain information, what else will Synthetic Vision give me so as to make it absurd to fly without one?

The airlines, corporate aviation and the military all seem to be flying IFR fine without it. Obviously they do not see the benefit of Synthetic Vision. If it is such a great benefit, why are there no OEM aircraft manufacturers using the certified Chelton line. It is the only EFIS maker touting Synthetic Vision--not Meggitt, not Collins, not Garmin, not Avidyne. I guess they are also absurd for not seeing the "real benefit in IMC for situational awareness."

w1curtis said:

In responding to the thread "Which AHRS/EFIS are you using?", I outlined what my past and current choices are and why. I have no "dawg" in the fight since I have not bought anything yet. I do not know anyone at any of the companies and I'm not getting anything for free or reduced prices. Some, clearly do have a "dawg" in the fight and so are more passionate about their "dawgs."

Click to expand...

Just in case, this was pointed at my comment... Let me set the record straight. I got no out of the ordinary - special deal. I took advantage of the OSH special last year when I purchased my Cheltons. No reduction over what anyone could have gotten at SNF this year. However as a result of my purchase, I formed a relationship with the company and the principles. That buys me exactly nothing in the form of "reduced prices" or any benefit. Simply means I call them friends.

Only "Dawg" in the fight is to correct mis-infomation.

Now back on topic. I agree that glass pilots could use information to get themselves in trouble. However I disagree with his statements about the value of a 3D view, but that is simply an opinion topic. To use an analogy, how many people with ADF receives will tune in the NDB/OM *and* their MB to know their situational awareness when on an ILS? Now try the approach into Jackson Hole Wyoming, or for that matter San Diego, CA when in the crud. When I'm in the Clag, I sorta want to know "exactly" where I am in relationship to my surroundings (traffic and obstacles included) and having SV only seems like a help, not a hinderance..... At least for me.

However, with that said, this is a *personal* preference. If you don't want it, don't buy it or disable it. After all, if we all liked the same things, life would be pretty boring.

BTW, just do a google for "synthetic vision". You'll see that Rockwell/Collins and other vendors are working with it. Might it be that we are on the "verge" of it becoming available in certified airplanes? While people are working thru the certification issues, STC's are an easy way to prove the technologies. Perhaps this is what the early providers are doing?

Bailing out

I'm afraid this thread has stalled and is now in an unrecoverable spin. So I'm bailing out.

Got an couple of extra chutes?

Me and my dawg are now pulling the rip chord, too!

I know this is an old thread, but...

I just ran across this old thread and felt a few things needed clarifying. Having used the CAPSTONE PHASE I (ADS-B proving) and PHASE II (Chelton EFIS) working for a living, I feel somewhat qualified in MY OPINIONS.

First, what is YOUR deffinition of "scud running"? What most people use as their deffinition is unsafe for them, but may or maynot be legal. The locations of the CAPSTONE projects were selected for rather specific reasons, not the least being the inability of some pilots to not only fly safely in LEGAL VFR WX, but to judge without error what the WX will be in a few hours.

I know what some of you are thinking, "Why not just file and go?" Welcome to Alaska, it's 99.999% rural (more like wilderness) and many "airports" are not what most pilots would call unimproved strips. Combine that with nonexistant ground transportation and you have 135 carriers that are relied upon for not only discretionary travel, but daily nessecities and emergencies. This leads to the inevitable pressures for both pilots and management to "get it done."

Phase I was performed in the YK Delta, a few thousand square miles of mostly flat tundra with mountains on the edges and a few in the middle. The average death rate was something like 5 per 10K per year due to aviation accidents. That's not a published number, just what I saw looking out the window. Anyway, you bought them GX60s and MX20s so they could safely get from A to B without getting lost or hitting one of the few mountains in the middle of nothing. The flat open unobstructed area was a perfect test bed for ADS-B, the real objective. You bought those too (GDL90s). They've had problems, but the ideas are sound and the bugs are almost completely worked out... Comes back to "nothing is idiot proof."

Phase II went to Southeast AK for similar reasons, people were dieing. Now they added terrain that doesn't allow a successful transition from VFR to IFR in emergencies (inadvertent IFR). You bought equipment that would allow just that! ADS-B is also being implemented there, but is no longer the primary "test."

The secondary objective of Phase II is to use ADS-B for control and sepparation of IFR traffic that would not be possible with surface radar. This is one of the main advantages of ADS-B. The main disadvantage is complacency in a mixed traffic enviorment, gotta look outside!!!

I can spend 10 minutes teaching a 5 yr old how to program the Chelton, DP to APP, and 2 more mintues to get him/her through an IPC. Yes, it's that intuitive. I especially like that flight path indicator. Forget where the nose is pointed, just put the flight path indicator on the end of the runway your sellected approach highlighted and both the needles will stay perfectly centered. 35g45 crosswind is no longer a factor in the approach. No one can say that about round gauges. In fact, I feel sorry for the student pilots doing instrument training on some of these systems. What happens when they try to fly round gauges? It shouldn't be legal...

As for other features being "invalid," I'm sure TCAS, TAWS, and their endless successors were simply implemented to burden the highly profitable airlines. I don't know about you, but I want anything that provides any kind of information without causing a distraction. Objects that I could possibly fly into are VERY high on my list of "good to know." I know I make mistakes...so does ATC and the guy next to you. If you're one of those perfect people, you can bet I won't be at YOUR funeral.

I don't care what TSO comes down the pike next. Flying without backup is dumb. I've seen all kinds of things go wrong in an airplane, typically it's whenever is most inconvenient. Having the GPS go **** up without some ground based NAV or INS while IFR is not high on my list of things to do...again. Yes the Chelton has an AHRS, yes it'll keep you pointed the right direction...sortta. Figure close to 5nm/min error at 140 KTS.

Widgets are great! Don't bet your life on them.