Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:48 AM - Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... (Matt Dralle)
1. 06:16 AM - Panel planning (DLM)
2. 07:11 AM - Re: Panel planning (Kelly McMullen)
3. 07:33 AM - Re: Panel planning (Tim Olson)
Message 0
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... |
Dear Listers,
Just a reminder that November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution
today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these great
List services!! Pick up a really nice free gift with your qualifying Contribution
too!
The Contribution Site is fast and easy:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
For IFR, I think two independent systems are necessary. My Chelton system
with two displays has a complete AHRS and GPS system; my backup is a GRT
Sport SX with AHRS and GPS, the tie breaker is a Trutrak Digiflite II with
its own solid state gyroscopic capabilities. There are three different ways
to keep the clean side up. The AP can be used with each EFIS (LNAV,VNAV)
with the Cheltons, LNAV with the GRT and stand alone. The SL30 output for
the VOR/LOC/ILS is sent digitally to both EFISs. The backup EFIS has power
inputs from both the primary and essential busses. The Cheltons and the
Trutrak are powered from the essential buss. The original plan was two 680s
in parallel for starting and backup but due to a requirement for a little
more forward CG, I added a 680 to the firewall and insulated it. It provides
ground power and is isolated from the starting circuit of the essential
buss. With the engine running and the alternator providing power, the
primary and essential busses are one.
>From a practical stand point if you have an EFIS failure while IFR, the
failure must be reported to ATC; it is very reasonable to declare and use
their assistance to put the aircraft on the ground safely. From a practical
standpoint, The primary Chelton is the PFD, the secondary Chelton alternates
as MFD during flight and engine data during landing and take off. The backup
has a page for MFD with airspeed, altitude, traffic and weather. If the
primary fails the backup has three important buttons, PFD,MFD, or engine
data. Of course there are lots of split screen possibilities but in an
emergency, simple is better. I plan to use it as a PFD which includes engine
data; I expect to land at a large airport, if possible, with fire rescue
equipment. I obviously would use the AP to keep the wings level while
attending to other duties. I find that the things I consider in the planning
never seem to happen. Also since the GRT Sport SX has the synthetic approach
capability, I have two means of an ILS approach guidance at hand, the
crosshairs (from SL30 data) on the Sport and the internal GPS HITS which
overlay the ILS.
Each must be comfortable with one's own plan. I too learned and hand flew
much IMC with round gauges but early on I added an electric AI and a
Strikefinder to my C177RG. Now my comfort level requires more.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel planning |
I'm curious, since I know of very little data on the subject. How many
of you have experienced, or know of an EFIS problem from a software bug
in the past say 3 years? During the early years of experimental EFIS
systems I'm sure the concern of dual EFIS having dual failure from
software bugs was a real concern. At least one vendor recently asserted
to me that it really isn't a problem anymore. I've seen nothing to
support either side of the discussion. That said, I'd sure want to put
some VFR testing time behind any firmware revision before launching IFR
to depend on anybody's EFIS.
On 11/14/2014 7:14 AM, DLM wrote:
>
> For IFR, I think two independent systems are necessary.
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel planning |
I'm sure bugs exist, but I haven't found any in years, actually.
A hardware problem is much more likely. But, some systems, like mine
and many others, are actually independent CPU's for each screen, so
something that affects one doesn't affect all the others.
I don't disagree with having items from two manufacturers, but
I also don't think that having 2 dis-similar units from one manufacturer
wouldn't accomplish the same thing. In the end, the most important
thing I think is that you have a reliable primary system, and
purchase at least some form of backup system, wether it be EFIS or
round gauges. Once you have that, I see no problems regardless
of the manufacturer of each.
I'm weighing the options for my RV14 build now too.
I'm thinking an RC Allen round Attitude indicator (I believe they
may be coming out with one with airspeed and heading built in)
would be plenty for me for a backup.
Other choices are the GRT mini, or round gauges.
Certainly I'm not going to waste a ton of panel space on it.
I'd prefer to keep it to a 2.25" round gauge if possible.
Once you have a good actual instrument as a backup attitude/
altitude/heading indicator, I think the iPad makes a pretty
good backup navigational device, and with 4 iphones and
4 ipads in the family, I'm not too concerned with having one
available.
Tim
On 11/14/2014 9:09 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> I'm curious, since I know of very little data on the subject. How many
> of you have experienced, or know of an EFIS problem from a software bug
> in the past say 3 years? During the early years of experimental EFIS
> systems I'm sure the concern of dual EFIS having dual failure from
> software bugs was a real concern. At least one vendor recently asserted
> to me that it really isn't a problem anymore. I've seen nothing to
> support either side of the discussion. That said, I'd sure want to put
> some VFR testing time behind any firmware revision before launching IFR
> to depend on anybody's EFIS.
>
> On 11/14/2014 7:14 AM, DLM wrote:
>>
>> For IFR, I think two independent systems are necessary.
>>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|