Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - The Perfect Panel...how to decide

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

jjessen

Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 285
Location: OR

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 6:57 am Post subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W

Bill, thanks for this excellent post.  Now we're getting down to brass

tacks.  



This is a tough topic, to be sure, one that often is handled by the glossing

replies that we cannot tackle the topic because it's too complex, too many

options, too many situations, so just go fly some examples.  Problem is, if

you don't know what your looking for or what questions to ask, well, then,

this is why the learning experience of others is so valuable as a starting

point.



Bill gave us a real scenario, unexpected fog.  I've been on two VFR flights

where I wish I'd gotten my IFR and been current.  One was a similar fog

scenario and one was a white-out over CT, in very business airspace.  The

fog scenario was not that bad, the fog not that thick, and I could have

diverted, but it did make me very conscious that I was vulnerable.  The

white out was very illuminating.  IMC in an instant.  VFR guys calling in

from all over asking for help.  Went down on the instruments and felt very

in control and comfortable keeping the 182 stable and headed in the right

direction, but it made me very conscious that I didn't have the right

knowledge nor experience nor tools (charts) to do much else but keep her

stable.  Flight following was great.  My flight plan got me to my VOR, then

made the turn that headed me towards the airport, even got vectored in and

given the altitudes to hit and it was all just great.  Finally got to where

I could see and the crises was over.  But that is a real situation that can

be described in terms of what one needs, what one can do, what creates the

consequent issues that dictate flight deck actions.  The mission was a

benign cross-country flight to visit with a client.  No hurry no worry.  



I think we can all agree on some basic levels of mission.  Also, I think we

can all agree on basic IFR/IMC scenarios based on preparation for take off,

take off, en route, approach, landing, etc.  The more scenarios the better.

The thing that follows is what's complex and much harder to describe, and

it's highly personal, dependent on what you have in the panel, but very

enlightening for all others.  How does one use the equipment in front of

them to handle the situation that the mission and the IFR/IMC presents, and

all the wrinkles that can be thrown at you?   



Collins (Flying magazine and elsewhere) does a good job of telling us that

"what you see is what you get" when it comes to IFR flight.  In short, you

should be prepared for almost anything, because at some point in time you'll

get it thrown at you, whether it will be Wx or traffic or the kids in the

back seat.  That's not to say you need the full monty in your panel, but

that you need to understand and practice how to use what you have.  Fine.

This we know.  



But when you're planning said panel, what are the, and I won't say "nice to

haves" but something more like "makes the execution more efficient, easier

and safer" because of what?  Tim did a good job of describing his one flight

that started to get him spatially disoriented and was appreciative of the

HITS and computer generated terrain.  This is an important point and based

on a flying example.  Being told to enter a holding pattern is another

example.  Flying to minimums and having to execute a go around is another.

There must be a dozen or so examples that can help us understand why a

particular setup ranks as easy, neutral or difficult in handling.  



It does not matter that one's panel is different than some one else's.  What

matters is how your panel would handle the situation and the reasons that

your set up is good, bad or indifferent.  By working through the scenarios

presented, even in Deems' 40 hours of simulation flight, one should be able

to gain an even better appreciation of the panel you have or are going to

have.  



Most of us are not yet flying, many of us have not even plunked down dollars

for a panel yet, so to hear and ask questions of those who have a panel, and

especially those who have been flying, is huge. 



My suggestion is that we use a forum, such as the Matronics wiki (something

that doesn't require Tim to loose even more sleep, the guy has done enough

for the good of us all), set up a matrix that might be mission x type of IFR

scenario, then have folks describe how their panel choice makes flying such

a scenario a breeze, not so bad, or a down right PITA, and the reasons why

(too difficult to punch in new numbers while be tossed around, just fly the

boxes, whatever the reason).  The baseline panel would be something like

Randy's, which is what I would think anyone would say to be a darn good,

basic IFR panel.  Essentially a six pack with a Dynon for the AI (and thus

much more functionality), plus an IFR GPS, a good TT autopilot with GPSS, an

MX-20.  This is a sound IFR panel and can be used safely and effectively.

Tim and Deems have very high end panels.  Etc etc.  



But the key is to name a scenario, acknowledge a panel configuration, then

describe its relative pluses and minuses and why.  



Any takers?  



John Jessen

  #328



do not archive



--

- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2878

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W

John J,



I'll run through a quick example of a couple things.  One thing about

the Chelton and instrument flying sudden-ties is this.  I remember

a flight in the old plane a few years ago, when I was freshly

minted with an IFR ticket.  Enroute to Florida, over the mountains

near Chattanooga, I was VFR and it was getting dark from a

storm to the west.  A layer started building below me, but it

was pretty thin.  I realized that if I continued to Atlanta, it would

get darker, from evening and from the storm.  I then realized I

forgot my prescription glasses at home and I didn't really care to

tackle a night VFR on top trip over the mountains without

100% clear vision...and I didn't want to go night IFR over

them either....because I had no onboard Wx and didn't want to

run into something unseen.  Time to divert.  Descended, towards

Chattanooga, and worked down through what was a hole in the now

thickening layer below....still semi comfortable that if all else

failed I could climb back to at least 7500 and do a 180 and be

in acceptable conditions within 20 minutes.  The "hole" ended

up going far lower to ground level than I thought, and all the

houses and cars I distinctly remember had lights on.  It was

*dark* down there.  I flew towards the nearest airport on my

handheld, but realized that I'd be flying either into clouds,

or darkness that was enough that I didn't know where terrain was.

My personal thought to myself was "You know, it's RIGHT now, at

THIS point, where continuing makes me exactly like the magazine

articles I read about."  Without a 2nd thought, I did a 180,

aimed the plane right back on my previous reverse course, and

started climbing, while ignoring the clouds altogether, deciding

to just simply climb straight go right through them until I busted

out.  As I did this, my wife scrambled for the charts, and I

told her to pull out Chattanooga.  I tried to remain level-headed,

and although I was very on-edge, I was also calm.  I contacted

Chattanooga approach...told them I had been VFR on top and

descended and realized it was not good, and that I wanted

help getting set up for an approach to Chattanooga.  They

were very nice, and said something like "climb and maintain

4500', turn Left heading 180 for vectors for the ILS-XX".

Immediately, it was a total relief, and although it got dark

as night, I became comfortable and felt secure.  I briefed

myself on the ILS approach chart, now that I could calmly

just hold heading on the AP and altitude by hand.  Surprisingly,

I was between layers for a while, and although only 500' at times

over the city, I saw absolutely no lights below.  I flew the

ILS, in rain, to about 300' and broke out, at night with the lights

blazing in front of me.  One of the best experiences in my life

and it was a great time indeed.  My fault for trying to continue

VFR a little too long.  My credit for recognizing that and taking

the proper way to resolve the situation.  NEVER, EVER, EVER, be

afraid to ask for help.



How could this be different?  Well, with onboard Wx, I can not

only see rain and storm areas, that's a simple one.  But, with

WSI I also can frequently punch "Nearest - WX" along my route

and get local winds and altimeter and weather conditions including

graphical METARS (those colored circles at airports coded for

wx conditions), on many airports along the way.  So now I could

have easily realized the airports around me were IFR.  Considering

I'd have terrain on board, I wouldn't continue towards a small

nearby airport, but I certainly would know if my fate was in danger.

 From there, with the EFIS I could have had almost immediate access

to the ATC and Approach facilities, as well as the ILS frequencies,

and loaded the approach with ease.  The Chelton approach loading

procedure is slick as can be...I can literally go from

realizing I'm lost to having a fully loaded instrument approach

to a nearby airport and locked in to the autopilot within 8-10

seconds...and that's not an exaggeration.  It's very very simple

to use.  That would have made it very easy to punch in the

approach, and still take heading vectors as required and

basically have a hands-off approach.  The alternative in

this case would have also been slick....I could have looked

for nearest ATC, picked up a pop-up IFR clearance, and in all

reality given the instrumentation AND the aircraft I'm now

flying, I would have probably just continued to Atlanta.

It would be so much simpler to know where the weather was,

and the EFIS very much turns a night flight into a day

flight in some respects.  With full terrain, including

synthetic vision with mountains in front of me, I could

have comfortably continued over the mountains without as

much worry.  And, the RV-10 would make the altitude easier

to obtain to keep good clearance, and the speed would have

made the ability to get there in daylight much nicer.  In all

reality, the ride was dead smooth, the weather was plenty

flyable, and the trip was easy to continue safely...but given

my limitations in the actual senario I was best folding my hand

early....whereas now I have plenty of kings and aces.



As for the missed approach topic....one other cool thing

about the EFIS is that as you are past the FAF, you get an

ARM and a MISS softkey that pops up.  Just hit ARM on the

way down, and, as soon as you hit MISS, it will start

flying the missed approach point.  You have VSI, V-speed,

Airspeed, MDA/DH and many more bugs you can use to aid

you along the way, but once you hit minimums, you can

hit one single key, and then throttle up and clean up the

flaps and the plane will fly itself for the published missed

approach.  Now THAT is some piece of mind when flying IFR

on a low day....and not only that, but it includes the

HITS, so even without an autopilot it's a breeze.



I had a good phone conversation last night and heard a story

about a pilot who's theory was to take every flight, and

break just one link in the chain.  That's to say, accidents

happen because of a chain of events gone wrong.  If you can

remove just one link in the chain, you can prevent that

accident from happening.  To me, I feel the equipment has

the ability to shorten and sever that chain in many respects.

Some links are strictly up to the pilot.  Some are the

maintainer.  Piloting in IFR conditions can make you feel

very "vinceable"....so every bit of comfort is great.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

John Jessen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Bill, thanks for this excellent post.  Now we're getting down to brass

 tacks.  

 

 This is a tough topic, to be sure, one that often is handled by the glossing

 replies that we cannot tackle the topic because it's too complex, too many

 options, too many situations, so just go fly some examples.  Problem is, if

 you don't know what your looking for or what questions to ask, well, then,

 this is why the learning experience of others is so valuable as a starting

 point.

 

 Bill gave us a real scenario, unexpected fog.  I've been on two VFR flights

 where I wish I'd gotten my IFR and been current.  One was a similar fog

 scenario and one was a white-out over CT, in very business airspace.  The

 fog scenario was not that bad, the fog not that thick, and I could have

 diverted, but it did make me very conscious that I was vulnerable.  The

 white out was very illuminating.  IMC in an instant.  VFR guys calling in

 from all over asking for help.  Went down on the instruments and felt very

 in control and comfortable keeping the 182 stable and headed in the right

 direction, but it made me very conscious that I didn't have the right

 knowledge nor experience nor tools (charts) to do much else but keep her

 stable.  Flight following was great.  My flight plan got me to my VOR, then

 made the turn that headed me towards the airport, even got vectored in and

 given the altitudes to hit and it was all just great.  Finally got to where

 I could see and the crises was over.  But that is a real situation that can

 be described in terms of what one needs, what one can do, what creates the

 consequent issues that dictate flight deck actions.  The mission was a

 benign cross-country flight to visit with a client.  No hurry no worry.  

 

 I think we can all agree on some basic levels of mission.  Also, I think we

 can all agree on basic IFR/IMC scenarios based on preparation for take off,

 take off, en route, approach, landing, etc.  The more scenarios the better.

 The thing that follows is what's complex and much harder to describe, and

 it's highly personal, dependent on what you have in the panel, but very

 enlightening for all others.  How does one use the equipment in front of

 them to handle the situation that the mission and the IFR/IMC presents, and

 all the wrinkles that can be thrown at you?   

 

 Collins (Flying magazine and elsewhere) does a good job of telling us that

 "what you see is what you get" when it comes to IFR flight.  In short, you

 should be prepared for almost anything, because at some point in time you'll

 get it thrown at you, whether it will be Wx or traffic or the kids in the

 back seat.  That's not to say you need the full monty in your panel, but

 that you need to understand and practice how to use what you have.  Fine.

 This we know.  

 

 But when you're planning said panel, what are the, and I won't say "nice to

 haves" but something more like "makes the execution more efficient, easier

 and safer" because of what?  Tim did a good job of describing his one flight

 that started to get him spatially disoriented and was appreciative of the

 HITS and computer generated terrain.  This is an important point and based

 on a flying example.  Being told to enter a holding pattern is another

 example.  Flying to minimums and having to execute a go around is another.

 There must be a dozen or so examples that can help us understand why a

 particular setup ranks as easy, neutral or difficult in handling.  

 

 It does not matter that one's panel is different than some one else's.  What

 matters is how your panel would handle the situation and the reasons that

 your set up is good, bad or indifferent.  By working through the scenarios

 presented, even in Deems' 40 hours of simulation flight, one should be able

 to gain an even better appreciation of the panel you have or are going to

 have.  

 

 Most of us are not yet flying, many of us have not even plunked down dollars

 for a panel yet, so to hear and ask questions of those who have a panel, and

 especially those who have been flying, is huge. 

 

 My suggestion is that we use a forum, such as the Matronics wiki (something

 that doesn't require Tim to loose even more sleep, the guy has done enough

 for the good of us all), set up a matrix that might be mission x type of IFR

 scenario, then have folks describe how their panel choice makes flying such

 a scenario a breeze, not so bad, or a down right PITA, and the reasons why

 (too difficult to punch in new numbers while be tossed around, just fly the

 boxes, whatever the reason).  The baseline panel would be something like

 Randy's, which is what I would think anyone would say to be a darn good,

 basic IFR panel.  Essentially a six pack with a Dynon for the AI (and thus

 much more functionality), plus an IFR GPS, a good TT autopilot with GPSS, an

 MX-20.  This is a sound IFR panel and can be used safely and effectively.

 Tim and Deems have very high end panels.  Etc etc.  

 

 But the key is to name a scenario, acknowledge a panel configuration, then

 describe its relative pluses and minuses and why.  

 

 Any takers?  

 

 John Jessen

   #328

 

 do not archive

- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

flysrv10(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 11:24 am Post subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W

Tim, Stop with this Chelton stuff!  It makes me sick.



Do not archive



On May 24, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 John J,



 I'll run through a quick example of a couple things.  One thing about

 the Chelton and instrument flying sudden-ties is this.  I remember

 a flight in the old plane a few years ago, when I was freshly

 minted with an IFR ticket.  Enroute to Florida, over the mountains

 near Chattanooga, I was VFR and it was getting dark from a

 storm to the west.  A layer started building below me, but it

 was pretty thin.  I realized that if I continued to Atlanta, it would

 get darker, from evening and from the storm.  I then realized I

 forgot my prescription glasses at home and I didn't really care to

 tackle a night VFR on top trip over the mountains without

 100% clear vision...and I didn't want to go night IFR over

 them either....because I had no onboard Wx and didn't want to

 run into something unseen.  Time to divert.  Descended, towards

 Chattanooga, and worked down through what was a hole in the now

 thickening layer below....still semi comfortable that if all else

 failed I could climb back to at least 7500 and do a 180 and be

 in acceptable conditions within 20 minutes.  The "hole" ended

 up going far lower to ground level than I thought, and all the

 houses and cars I distinctly remember had lights on.  It was

 *dark* down there.  I flew towards the nearest airport on my

 handheld, but realized that I'd be flying either into clouds,

 or darkness that was enough that I didn't know where terrain was.

 My personal thought to myself was "You know, it's RIGHT now, at

 THIS point, where continuing makes me exactly like the magazine

 articles I read about."  Without a 2nd thought, I did a 180,

 aimed the plane right back on my previous reverse course, and

 started climbing, while ignoring the clouds altogether, deciding

 to just simply climb straight go right through them until I busted

 out.  As I did this, my wife scrambled for the charts, and I

 told her to pull out Chattanooga.  I tried to remain level-headed,

 and although I was very on-edge, I was also calm.  I contacted

 Chattanooga approach...told them I had been VFR on top and

 descended and realized it was not good, and that I wanted

 help getting set up for an approach to Chattanooga.  They

 were very nice, and said something like "climb and maintain

 4500', turn Left heading 180 for vectors for the ILS-XX".

 Immediately, it was a total relief, and although it got dark

 as night, I became comfortable and felt secure.  I briefed

 myself on the ILS approach chart, now that I could calmly

 just hold heading on the AP and altitude by hand.  Surprisingly,

 I was between layers for a while, and although only 500' at times

 over the city, I saw absolutely no lights below.  I flew the

 ILS, in rain, to about 300' and broke out, at night with the lights

 blazing in front of me.  One of the best experiences in my life

 and it was a great time indeed.  My fault for trying to continue

 VFR a little too long.  My credit for recognizing that and taking

 the proper way to resolve the situation.  NEVER, EVER, EVER, be

 afraid to ask for help.



 How could this be different?  Well, with onboard Wx, I can not

 only see rain and storm areas, that's a simple one.  But, with

 WSI I also can frequently punch "Nearest - WX" along my route

 and get local winds and altimeter and weather conditions including

 graphical METARS (those colored circles at airports coded for

 wx conditions), on many airports along the way.  So now I could

 have easily realized the airports around me were IFR.  Considering

 I'd have terrain on board, I wouldn't continue towards a small

 nearby airport, but I certainly would know if my fate was in danger.

 From there, with the EFIS I could have had almost immediate access

 to the ATC and Approach facilities, as well as the ILS frequencies,

 and loaded the approach with ease.  The Chelton approach loading

 procedure is slick as can be...I can literally go from

 realizing I'm lost to having a fully loaded instrument approach

 to a nearby airport and locked in to the autopilot within 8-10

 seconds...and that's not an exaggeration.  It's very very simple

 to use.  That would have made it very easy to punch in the

 approach, and still take heading vectors as required and

 basically have a hands-off approach.  The alternative in

 this case would have also been slick....I could have looked

 for nearest ATC, picked up a pop-up IFR clearance, and in all

 reality given the instrumentation AND the aircraft I'm now

 flying, I would have probably just continued to Atlanta.

 It would be so much simpler to know where the weather was,

 and the EFIS very much turns a night flight into a day

 flight in some respects.  With full terrain, including

 synthetic vision with mountains in front of me, I could

 have comfortably continued over the mountains without as

 much worry.  And, the RV-10 would make the altitude easier

 to obtain to keep good clearance, and the speed would have

 made the ability to get there in daylight much nicer.  In all

 reality, the ride was dead smooth, the weather was plenty

 flyable, and the trip was easy to continue safely...but given

 my limitations in the actual senario I was best folding my hand

 early....whereas now I have plenty of kings and aces.



 As for the missed approach topic....one other cool thing

 about the EFIS is that as you are past the FAF, you get an

 ARM and a MISS softkey that pops up.  Just hit ARM on the

 way down, and, as soon as you hit MISS, it will start

 flying the missed approach point.  You have VSI, V-speed,

 Airspeed, MDA/DH and many more bugs you can use to aid

 you along the way, but once you hit minimums, you can

 hit one single key, and then throttle up and clean up the

 flaps and the plane will fly itself for the published missed

 approach.  Now THAT is some piece of mind when flying IFR

 on a low day....and not only that, but it includes the

 HITS, so even without an autopilot it's a breeze.



 I had a good phone conversation last night and heard a story

 about a pilot who's theory was to take every flight, and

 break just one link in the chain.  That's to say, accidents

 happen because of a chain of events gone wrong.  If you can

 remove just one link in the chain, you can prevent that

 accident from happening.  To me, I feel the equipment has

 the ability to shorten and sever that chain in many respects.

 Some links are strictly up to the pilot.  Some are the

 maintainer.  Piloting in IFR conditions can make you feel

 very "vinceable"....so every bit of comfort is great.



 Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

 do not archive

 John Jessen wrote:

> 

> Bill, thanks for this excellent post.  Now we're getting down to  

> brass

> tacks.  This is a tough topic, to be sure, one that often is  

> handled by the glossing

> replies that we cannot tackle the topic because it's too complex,  

> too many

> options, too many situations, so just go fly some examples.   

> Problem is, if

> you don't know what your looking for or what questions to ask,  

> well, then,

> this is why the learning experience of others is so valuable as a  

> starting

> point.

> Bill gave us a real scenario, unexpected fog.  I've been on two  

> VFR flights

> where I wish I'd gotten my IFR and been current.  One was a  

> similar fog

> scenario and one was a white-out over CT, in very business  

> airspace.  The

> fog scenario was not that bad, the fog not that thick, and I could  

> have

> diverted, but it did make me very conscious that I was  

> vulnerable.  The

> white out was very illuminating.  IMC in an instant.  VFR guys  

> calling in

> from all over asking for help.  Went down on the instruments and  

> felt very

> in control and comfortable keeping the 182 stable and headed in  

> the right

> direction, but it made me very conscious that I didn't have the right

> knowledge nor experience nor tools (charts) to do much else but  

> keep her

> stable.  Flight following was great.  My flight plan got me to my  

> VOR, then

> made the turn that headed me towards the airport, even got  

> vectored in and

> given the altitudes to hit and it was all just great.  Finally got  

> to where

> I could see and the crises was over.  But that is a real situation  

> that can

> be described in terms of what one needs, what one can do, what  

> creates the

> consequent issues that dictate flight deck actions.  The mission  

> was a

> benign cross-country flight to visit with a client.  No hurry no  

> worry.  I think we can all agree on some basic levels of mission.   

> Also, I think we

> can all agree on basic IFR/IMC scenarios based on preparation for  

> take off,

> take off, en route, approach, landing, etc.  The more scenarios  

> the better.

> The thing that follows is what's complex and much harder to  

> describe, and

> it's highly personal, dependent on what you have in the panel, but  

> very

> enlightening for all others.  How does one use the equipment in  

> front of

> them to handle the situation that the mission and the IFR/IMC  

> presents, and

> all the wrinkles that can be thrown at you?   Collins (Flying  

> magazine and elsewhere) does a good job of telling us that

> "what you see is what you get" when it comes to IFR flight.  In  

> short, you

> should be prepared for almost anything, because at some point in  

> time you'll

> get it thrown at you, whether it will be Wx or traffic or the kids  

> in the

> back seat.  That's not to say you need the full monty in your  

> panel, but

> that you need to understand and practice how to use what you  

> have.  Fine.

> This we know.  But when you're planning said panel, what are the,  

> and I won't say "nice to

> haves" but something more like "makes the execution more  

> efficient, easier

> and safer" because of what?  Tim did a good job of describing his  

> one flight

> that started to get him spatially disoriented and was appreciative  

> of the

> HITS and computer generated terrain.  This is an important point  

> and based

> on a flying example.  Being told to enter a holding pattern is  

> another

> example.  Flying to minimums and having to execute a go around is  

> another.

> There must be a dozen or so examples that can help us understand  

> why a

> particular setup ranks as easy, neutral or difficult in handling.   

> It does not matter that one's panel is different than some one  

> else's.  What

> matters is how your panel would handle the situation and the  

> reasons that

> your set up is good, bad or indifferent.  By working through the  

> scenarios

> presented, even in Deems' 40 hours of simulation flight, one  

> should be able

> to gain an even better appreciation of the panel you have or are  

> going to

> have.  Most of us are not yet flying, many of us have not even  

> plunked down dollars

> for a panel yet, so to hear and ask questions of those who have a  

> panel, and

> especially those who have been flying, is huge. My suggestion is  

> that we use a forum, such as the Matronics wiki (something

> that doesn't require Tim to loose even more sleep, the guy has  

> done enough

> for the good of us all), set up a matrix that might be mission x  

> type of IFR

> scenario, then have folks describe how their panel choice makes  

> flying such

> a scenario a breeze, not so bad, or a down right PITA, and the  

> reasons why

> (too difficult to punch in new numbers while be tossed around,  

> just fly the

> boxes, whatever the reason).  The baseline panel would be  

> something like

> Randy's, which is what I would think anyone would say to be a darn  

> good,

> basic IFR panel.  Essentially a six pack with a Dynon for the AI  

> (and thus

> much more functionality), plus an IFR GPS, a good TT autopilot  

> with GPSS, an

> MX-20.  This is a sound IFR panel and can be used safely and  

> effectively.

> Tim and Deems have very high end panels.  Etc etc.  But the key is  

> to name a scenario, acknowledge a panel configuration, then

> describe its relative pluses and minuses and why.  Any takers?   

> John Jessen

>   #328

> do not archive

- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal
Guest

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 11:28 am Post subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W

As usual, a great post, Tim.



I wish I could afford the Chelton system.  But unless I win the lottery

I will have to see what the next best system is, at about half the price

of the cheton.  So far, GRT looks like the one. 



Jack Phillips

#40610

Tailcone



--

- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

mritter509(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 12:03 pm Post subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W

Jack,



You get great value with the GRT for the price.  I have two GRT screens in 

my panel with a GNS 430W, SL 30 and Sorcerer auto pilot. Shooting coupled 

approaches with this setup is a snap.  GRT is coming out with new Hi Res and 

synthetic vision versions later this year.  I'm on the upgrade list.

I overlay XM weather, traffic and terrain on a Garmin CMX-200.



After 100 hours I finally got around to replacing the original steel nose 

wheel spacers (builder #43) with the new aluminum ones.  As Tim and others 

have found the old steel spacers were turning and galling the fork.  I put a 

screw thru the fork into the spacer to keep it from turning.



Mark

N410MR





[quote]From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com>

Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: RE: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W

Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 15:27:48 -0400




<Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com>



As usual, a great post, Tim.



I wish I could afford the Chelton system.  But unless I win the lottery

I will have to see what the next best system is, at about half the price

of the cheton.  So far, GRT looks like the one.



Jack Phillips

#40610

Tailcone



--

- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

jjessen

Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 285
Location: OR

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W

Actually, Tim gave us the first scenario.  It doesn't matter that it's with

the Chelton.  The scenario is the key.  How the Chelton solved the scenario,

good or not so good, is the goal here.



Now we need to determine how other systems are used in this type of

situation.  We need examples, from all types of setups.  It is through the

scenarios that we will learn what works and if we feel we need to hock our

first born or not.  



So?  Just take Tim's as a generic example and think through how your system

would handle it.  Or, give us another example and explain the strengths,

weaknesses.  We need both.  By thinking this through, scenario by scenario,

we all gain through a better understanding of how your current or hoped for

system will perform.  I haven't got time today, but may this weekend I'm

going to try Tim's scenario using the AFS 3500 with a 430W and an MX200

(although maybe the latter won't be necessary if they AFS gear has moving

map down the road).  



John J

  #328 



--

- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 3:49 pm Post subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W

has anyone flown the handheld Cheeta system...FL 190 or something like that?

  

 P



See what's free at AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

Bill Schlatterer

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 195

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W

Interesting discussion on value versus safety.   I went with the GRT system

but might have done Chelton if I wasn't already about 20K over the "budget".

I am completely comfortable that the GRT with the TT VSVG or Soccorer is as

safe as the Chelton if used properly. The Chelton might give us a few more

"inputs" like Synthetic Vision that would be helpful at the TU point but I

would hope that we all would have made the decision long before to go to the

alternate.



Once you get past the basic IFR plane with a good autopilot, you have all

you require but maybe not all you might need in an extreme situation.  No

matter the package you fly, the biggest safety factor is the pilot.  



I'm probably not saying this correctly but the "functional" difference is so

small compared to all the other significant risk factors in a low approach

that I bet you would have called it off no matter which system you had. I

would suggest to you that in real life IFR flight, that you will never say,

"if I had a Chelton, I would have done it but since I only have the GRT,

I'll go to the alternate".  You will have made the decision way before the

difference come into plan.



Tim, jump in here but for conversation purposes, there is an argument that

that a simple 6 pack with an HIS/ILS and GPS is just as safe right up to the

point where the pilot senses he is starting to lose situational awareness.

If at that point, he is hand flying, there is simply no time to analyze the

situation without distraction, you just go missed to the alternate and

you're as safe as the Chelton boys.  NOW, the big difference is that at the

point where the pilot starts to get overwhelmed hand flying, the Chelton(or

almost Chelton) boys are still calmly monitoring the equipment, have more

inputs to determine corrective action, and have better situational

awareness.  In the real world that means that they can observe the equipment

fly the approach while monitoring ALL(most) aspects of a deteriorating

approach while a lesser equipped plane will require more flying and less

monitoring and fly a higher risk approach.  The more dollars you spend on

equipment, the potential benefit is increased situational awareness and the

ability to delay the go-missed decision.  BUT that doesn't make one

inherently safer than the other if the pilot uses good judgment in a timely

manner.  We simply have to substitute a slightly more conservative risk

management approach to allow for minor or major equipment differences caused

by budget shortfalls ;-(



HOWEVER, there simply is no argument that more equipment is safer if you are

truly backed into a corner.  Let's work real hard not to get in that corner

and try to really understand the equipment we can afford.



Very enjoyable discussion, good points by all.



Bill S

7a and other stuff



--

- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: The Perfect Panel...how to decide - was GNS-430W

In a message dated 5/24/2007 11:06:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  HOWEVER, there simply is no argument that more equipment is safer if you are

truly backed into a corner. 	


 Bill, I think your point is well taken but having flown in a glass machine, one really needs to stay perfectient to be comfortable..sitting monitoring all the wonderful machines and also to know when one has a hic-up takes some skill building time.  I'm really not that impressed with the Cessna G 1000 solution to back up instruments.  They're OK but not great.  They are now introducing the Garmin autopilots but the current King AP's require a turn indicator, and they have it buried behind the screens so that it absolutely zero help in an emergency situation.  I think a good back up electric DG is not a bad option with it's own back up power would be a nice item to have along with the screens.

  

 I don't know what's come of a recent accident investgation where an all glass piper went in but the scuttle butt was that the G 1000's had some problems and may have shut down, and the pilot lost control and the back up instruments were either not enough or they were also off line.  I would think a good electric DG with a vertical card compass and maybe a good handheld GPS would be a good strong back up to the all glass machines, especially if the hand held had good internal back up battery power...at least 2+ hours of time.  I've got a feeling the old radio nav system is not going away all that soon.

  

 P



See what's free at AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List