Servos support all autopilot features provided by the EFIS, including:
Heading select
Climb/Descent to selected altitude
Climb/Descent on IAS or vertical speed
Synthetic approach coupling
Automatic approach capture
VOR coupling
ILS approach coupling
GPS approach coupling
Do they already provide these functions to TruTrak APs or are these functions only for the GRT AP?
For those that want the triple redundancy that a stand alone AP provides in IMC, just slap in one of the $1000 ADI/Mini Efis/Gemini solutions available now and still save yourself 3 to 4 grand. (just a guess do your own math)
There is more than one way to get there and some options are less expensive than others....
Here is my thinking and please correct me if I am wrong I am just starting IFR.
I have my 430W linked to both my Dynon 10a (serial connection) and my GRT SX. (arinc converter) I am using the Dynon AP74 which currently only fly's horizontal poisoning. From what I was told this week, Dynon will hopefully have the AP76 back on the market some time early next year. If I add the AP76 and the HS34 then I would be able to fly an approach (vertical positioning) with the AP. This will allow me to watch the approach on my GRT and fly it with the Dynon.
I am very happy with my GRT but keeping the AP through my 10A will give me redundancy flying IFR.
BTW I just completed 10 hours flight time and the Dynon AP flew about 8 to 9 hours of it without a single flaw.
My 2 cents here,
The way I see AP as redundancy for IFR is that the AP be able to fly the plane (keep the wings level) in case of instrument (EIFS in this case) failure. If you’re AP is only driven thru the EIFS, then it is really not a redundancy.
I see your set up more as a additional tool for flying IFR, which I think it is great and very handy.
Yep. We're flying enough IFR these days, despite others saying it isn't necessary, to avoid this situation. I'm now certain, after talking to GRT two years in a row at Oshkosh, that my EFIS plans for all of my future aircraft are going to other vendors. I have almost 700hrs behind GRT equipment.
It's a real beauty of using the Dynon D10A as an autopilot. It costs much less than just a standalone AP ($3,700), and if your main EFIS fails, you have a "Free" EFIS to get down with instead of just black box.
Yep. We're flying enough IFR these days, despite others saying it isn't necessary, to avoid this situation. I'm now certain, after talking to GRT two years in a row at Oshkosh, that my EFIS plans for all of my future aircraft are going to other vendors. I have almost 700hrs behind GRT equipment.
For VFR X-country trips, the integrated AP will relieve some of the work to hold a track and altitude. For the IFR folks, you can choose the TT or any other independent AP.
Scott, Is there something I am not seeing that would keep me from buying GRT in the future?
These cheap AP's sound great but remember EFIS manufacturer's are not necessarily experienced at building autopilots. No disrespect to Dynon, but why would you risk your life in IMC with an unproven product when there are other manufacturer's out there with a better track record. Wasn't the D10A originally marketed as "not suitable for IFR"?
Many of the other EFIS vendors have OEM'ed specialist hardware for the job. Take AFS and Garmin - they both use Trutrak. Blue Mountains on the other hand had huge problems with their autopilots when they went their own way – not to mention the units themselves were somewhat unreliable. Several vendors have tried a number of methods to control the autopilots before they came across something that worked well for them.
To me that says building a good autopilot is not the same as building an EFIS and I would personally rather not test a new product for them or fly behind it in IMC at this point. Sure you can cobble together a bunch of stuff from different vendors and call it redundant but how you would think you have time to troubleshoot all that in IFR I am not sure.
Last weekend I was in heavy IFR and despite our best intentions we did experience some ice and had to make an escape plan. When this sort of thing happens and you are in IMC you just cannot second guess the equipment.
If your mission is VFR then these autopilots would probably be excellent. They might ultimately prove to be a very good platform for IFR - but I just wouldn't want to be one of the first to find out.
For me they lack the failsafe features that a separate unit can provide which is not something I would save a few hundred dollars on. The Trutrak autopilot does continue to work when the equipment connected to it stops. What happens to your Skyview system if the new software you loaded to control your XM weather feed locks the EFIS up in the middle of an approach in IMC?
Personally I am getting sick of hearing about all the cool things the vendors are offering and watching everyone wait for something promised 18 months prior – or struggling through the multiple software revisions. Its how these companies work but really it’s just not cool. Even Garmin handed out a pile of avionics a year or so ago for people to install in their aircraft and “advertise for them”. Today they still haven’t delivered everything that they promised in terms of features.
Sooner or later we all need to decide if we want to go flying with a proven product or help a vendor test one which is not.
So, what do we have ?
I'm afraid the argument that having an old, simple (and expensive) stand-alone AP for "redundancy" is so blown out of the water it is not even funny.
You are assuming that Dynon's (and our) autopilot is somehow still at the starting gates. I think if you look at both Dynon's and our autopilot a tad closer, you might find they are overtaking even the very best systems out there - and so they should. Knowing GRT, I'm pretty sure they will be no different.Technical arguments aside, you seem to be confirming my argument that you wish your customers to pay you to "get the experience" that you need. Some will be happy with that, some will appreciate the lower cost for additional features, and some may even want to be on the cutting edge.
Sure, no doubt a good argument. Only time fixes this for the "newbies".I never said any of the manufacturers would not do the right thing by customers to make it right, but not all of us want to be part of the process you describe. Let?s remember the question related to IFR flight ? where a proven system is obviously a consideration.
Yes - but what are you trying to say ? How does that differ from any of the current much lower cost systems ?As a software engineer - my opinion is that the critical aspect of modern computing systems (and avionics) is the interface to the end user. Technology will come and go, but the interface and integration to other components within the system will not be replaced easily. The G1000 from Garmin is an excellent example. Many components, integrated seamlessly on one screen.
Well, that is an easy answer. Yes and no. We (and others) do integrate with other equipment (SL30, 430W, TCAS, PCAS, FLARM, FLIR, VPX,...) the list is long.The question I would ask you as a manufacturer is why you would spend R&D dollars doing something that you could buy and integrate more cheaply and have a better solution now ? thus being in front of your competitors? You already have integration to a number of third party products on your website. IMO the real battle for an EFIS market is to have the best user interface/graphics/synthetic vision display and integrate with as much hardware as possible.
Yes, you are quite right - this is exactly where it's going and take just a small guess where we fit into the picture sometime in the near future...Look at Dynon?s latest system. Air data computer in the tail and an Ethernet port to the panel. Before too long we?ll all be buying something like this and plugging it into a couple of iPad?s or whatever. When that happens I hope you have the best software out there ? because that?s where it?s going. It is the only thing that cannot be turned into a commodity item. Programming physics might be good fun, but why do it if someone else has done it? In a pinch you could buy off the shelf hardware ? possibly from someone who has experience certifying the components.
Coming back to the original question ? show me flight hours and real world experience and performance. Then I might let you connect your electric boxes to my flight controls - if I think the operator interface is suitable and you can convince me that some code you wrote to display a map couldn?t result in the autopilot servos malfunctioning in IMC.
I am failing to see the logic here in terms of redundancy.
If my AP controlled solely via the EFIS (Dynon or GRT), if I lose the EFIS then I have lost the AP as well.
In my case, and my logic, I have dual EFIS, dual AHAR and TT AP. If I lose both of my EFIS, I still have my TT to keep me right side up and give me time to troubleshoot if I need to. I also have a 430 that can drive the TT AP for approach if I need to. With integrated system I will not have any of that, right?
Plus, I am wondering how long it will take for Dynon and GRT to mature to the level that other AP are already!!!
Scott,
I am also interested in your reasoning?
Yes - but what are you trying to say ? How does that differ from any of the current much lower cost systems ?
In our case it's got nothing to do with making money. That concept does not even feature in our company. We do it because we can. We do it because it is a challenge. We do it because we are a bunch of engineers and this is what engineers do. We don't have a single "business man" in our company. We start with "Hey, let's make a Nav radio" - and then we do...
Yes, you are quite right - this is exactly where it's going and take just a small guess where we fit into the picture sometime in the near future...
BTW: Yes, it's going there but the iPAD - allthough very tempting is not quite right just yet. But it's certainly pointing in a direction...
I could talk about several tens of thousands of our instruments out there doing their thing, made over a period of 12 years and being continuously redesigned to follow technology (does that not count for at least a little bit of experience ?), I could talk about 20 years before that making equipment that operates in the very toughest environments on the planet - 24/7 - but somehow, I think your mind is made up ?
If you believe certifcation has anything to do with reliability - I think you should have a closer look at the certified World.