Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

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

Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Matt Dralle
Site Admin

Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 26321
Location: Livermore CA USA

Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:35 pm Post subject: Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

 	  Quote: 	
		  At 09:47 PM 12/27/2011  Tuesday, you wrote:

I have looked at the Dynon stuff up at Arlington Air Show the past two years

and really like the looks of them. They added autopilot and said last year

that they were about to announce communications added to their system.  A

single 10" screen to do everything would be pretty easy to install learn to

operate.  Mostly Dynon looks best in the magazines. I guess you get used to

any of them or they would not all still be in business.

Pete



	




I have a Dynon 10" Skyview in the RV-6:



http://www.mattsrv6.com/users/display_log.php?user=MattsRV6&project=2043&category=0&log=138164&row=45

http://www.mattsrv6.com/users/display_log.php?user=MattsRV6&project=2043&category=0&log=138163&row=46



and a triple GRT HX setup in the RV-8:



http://www.mattsrv8.com/users/display_log.php?user=MattsRV8&project=638&category=2973&log=96376&row=134

http://www.mattsrv8.com/users/display_log.php?user=MattsRV8&project=638&category=2973&log=96375&row=135



I've flown the GRT HX setup about 170 hours and the Dynon Skyview system about 45 hours now.



Which do I prefer?  That's a tough call.  There are parts about each system that I like a lot...



The installation and configuration of the Dynon is easier.  Instructions are also better.  The network cable interconnect system that Dynon uses (I think it is just RS485, but it works well) is also a no-brainer to install.  Their display (PFD/Engine/Map) are definitely very pretty and demo well.



The GRT is a little harder to get installed, the manual is a little sketchy in places and there are a LOT of configuration options that can seem daunting at first.  BUT, there is power and utility in those options.  If you use them to your advantage, you can probably do more, better on the GRT compared to the Dynon.  The displays on the GRT don't have the "3D-y", "Windows-y" look to them.  BUT, I think I'm preferring that at this point.  Doing a scan on the GRT looking for something out of the ordinary is quicker and more accurate.  I also like the PFD layout and operation on the GRT better.  It feels more "accurate" and "believable" to me for some reason.  I never quite "trust" what I'm seeing on the Dynon for some reason and I don't know why.  Maybe I just need more time on the Dynon. 



So, the Dynon has it for Installation and Configuation, but the GRT has it for Operation and Presentation as far as I'm concerned.  If I was building a new plane, I think that I would probably go with the GRT.  But its a close race.  I really like the Dynon system too.



I guess I'm saying if you're in the market for a full-featured EFIS system, give GRT and Dynon both very close look before you make your selection.  In my opinion, it comes down to personal preferences in a few select areas on which way to go.  Both systems are top notch.



BTW, Dynon's autopilot add-on for the Skyview which I have in the RV-6 works well.  Its a good autopilot that does the job.  The servos are the same as with the TruTrak system.  In the RV-8, I have the TruTrak Digiflight II VSGV system.  The TruTrak is a smoother, more accurate autopilot in my opinion, and I would go that route again.  But, it also costs quite a bit more than just adding servos to the Dynon or GRT.



$.02



-

Matt "Red Dawg" Dralle



RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"

http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log

http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log

http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel

Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...



RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer"

http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log

Status: 42+ Hours Since Purchase - Upgrades Complete; Now In Full Flyer Mode

_________________
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator

rv10pro(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:20 am Post subject: Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

The RV-12 is being redesigned for the Skyview so it is getting a major VAN's endorsement.  Much like the AFS as standard in the Glastar - Two weeks to Taxi... that has big impact on widespread marketplace endorsement.  

John On Dec 27, 2011 10:45 PM, "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com (dralle(at)matronics.com)> wrote:[quote] --> RV10-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com (dralle(at)matronics.com)>

 >At 09:47 PM 12/27/2011  Tuesday, you wrote:

 >I have looked at the Dynon stuff up at Arlington Air Show the past two years

 >and really like the looks of them. They added autopilot and said last year

 >that they were about to announce communications added to their system.  A

 >single 10" screen to do everything would be pretty easy to install learn to

 >operate.  Mostly Dynon looks best in the magazines. I guess you get used to

 >any of them or they would not all still be in business.

 >Pete

 I have a Dynon 10" Skyview in the RV-6:

 http://www.mattsrv6.com/users/display_log.php?user=MattsRV6&project=2043&category=0&log=138164&row=45

  http://www.mattsrv6.com/users/display_log.php?user=MattsRV6&project=2043&category=0&log=138163&row=46

 and a triple GRT HX setup in the RV-8:

 http://www.mattsrv8.com/users/display_log.php?user=MattsRV8&project=638&category=2973&log=96376&row=134

  http://www.mattsrv8.com/users/display_log.php?user=MattsRV8&project=638&category=2973&log=96375&row=135

 I've flown the GRT HX setup about 170 hours and the Dynon Skyview system about 45 hours now.

 Which do I prefer?  That's a tough call.  There are parts about each system that I like a lot...

 The installation and configuration of the Dynon is easier.  Instructions are also better.  The network cable interconnect system that Dynon uses (I think it is just RS485, but it works well) is also a no-brainer to install.  Their display (PFD/Engine/Map) are definitely very pretty and demo well.

 The GRT is a little harder to get installed, the manual is a little sketchy in places and there are a LOT of configuration options that can seem daunting at first.  BUT, there is power and utility in those options.  If you use them to your advantage, you can probably do more, better on the GRT compared to the Dynon.  The displays on the GRT don't have the "3D-y", "Windows-y" look to them.  BUT, I think I'm preferring that at this point.  Doing a scan on the GRT looking for something out of the ordinary is quicker and more accurate.  I also like the PFD layout and operation on the GRT better.  It feels more "accurate" and "believable" to me for some reason.  I never quite "trust" what I'm seeing on the Dynon for some reason and I don't know why.  Maybe I just need more time on the Dynon.

 So, the Dynon has it for Installation and Configuation, but the GRT has it for Operation and Presentation as far as I'm concerned.  If I was building a new plane, I think that I would probably go with the GRT.  But its a close race.  I really like the Dynon system too.

 I guess I'm saying if you're in the market for a full-featured EFIS system, give GRT and Dynon both very close look before you make your selection.  In my opinion, it comes down to personal preferences in a few select areas on which way to go.  Both systems are top notch.

 BTW, Dynon's autopilot add-on for the Skyview which I have in the RV-6 works well.  Its a good autopilot that does the job.  The servos are the same as with the TruTrak system.  In the RV-8, I have the TruTrak Digiflight II VSGV system.  The TruTrak is a smoother, more accurate autopilot in my opinion, and I would go that route again.  But, it also costs quite a bit more than just adding servos to the Dynon or GRT.

 $.02

 -

 Matt "Red Dawg" Dralle

 RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"

 http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log

 http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log

 http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel

 Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...

 RV-6 #20916 N360EM "The Flyer"

 http://www.mattsrv6.com - Matt's RV-6 Revitalization Log

 Status: 42+ Hours Since Purchase - Upgrades Complete; Now In Full Flyer Mode

 ===========

 ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com

 ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com

 et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 le, List Admin.

 ===========

 arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ===========

 http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 le, List Admin.

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 [b]

rv10flyer

Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 364

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:41 am Post subject: Re: Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

Agree with all said about GRT. I have 2 8.4" HX, TT DFIIVSGV, 430W. Yes the ap is almost perfect with recommended settings for the -10. After flying behind two different AFS systems and one Chelton system for a very short time each...I also noticed minor differences. 



I do like having my ap independent. I am hoping GRT has the charts option soon. I am happy with the glitch-free GRT products and support.

_________________
Wayne G.

johngoodman

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 530
Location: GA

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:21 am Post subject: Re: Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

 	  rv10flyer wrote: 	
		  

I do like having my ap independent. I am hoping GRT has the charts option soon. I am happy with the glitch-free GRT products and support. 	




I have charts in my HX right now...  Is there something different you are talking about?



John

_________________
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011

aerosport1

Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 231

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:12 am Post subject: Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

I believe what Wayne is referring to is the VFR sectionals, IFR low en-route

charts/maps and AFD now available

On the New AFS 5600 and 5500 screens. I have been flying these new screens

for 10 hours and they are loaded with features. Attached are some picture of

the VFR sectional on the left screen and the other picture shows the

Rubber band feature move the joy stick to a location on the chart and it

gives you the heading and distance

Pretty cool.



Geoff 

 

Geoff Combs

Aerosport Modeling & Design

8090 Howe Industrial Parkway 

Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110

614-834-5227p

614-834-5230f

www.aerosportmodeling.com



--

IMG_2475.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

427.96 KB

Viewed:

11596 Time(s)

AFS_5500.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

343.01 KB

Viewed:

11596 Time(s)

_________________
Geoff Combs
RV-10 QB N829GW
Flying 500 hrs
40033

nukeflyboy

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Granbury, TX

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:34 pm Post subject: Re: Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

When I was doing my EFIS hunting I found three issues with the Dynon that do not exist with the GRT, AFS, or Garmin suites.

1.  Dynon does not have an XM WX interface

2.  The Dynon in-house required A/P is not independent, therefore not usable if the EFIS fails

3.  No vertical guidance to the A/P so you can't do a complete coupled approach.  

Otherwise the Skyview is a capable unit at a good price.

_________________
Dave Moore
RV-6 built and sold
RV-10 built and flying

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:45 pm Post subject: Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

Don't recall on the XM, but Dyon is working on getting ADSB-IN, and 

vertical guidance on A/P. If you are flying it IFR you likely will do 

dual ADHRS and dual backup batteries, so you will have two control heads 

for A/P, which is one more than you have with standalone.



On 12/28/2011 3:34 PM, nukeflyboy wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 When I was doing my EFIS hunting I found three issues with the Dynon that do not exist with the GRT, AFS, or Garmin suites.

 1.  Dynon does not have an XM WX interface

 2.  The Dynon in-house required A/P is not independent, therefore not usable if the EFIS fails

 3.  No vertical guidance to the A/P so you can't do a complete coupled approach.

 Otherwise the Skyview is a capable unit at a good price.



 --------

 Dave Moore

 RV-6 flying

 RV-10 QB - Working G3X panel

 Rest almost done





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=361859#361859

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:31 pm Post subject: Re: Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

I have the GRT HX/HS and a fully coupled Trio autopilot, and of course I like the panel very much.



Having said that, I really don't think too much emphasis should be placed on having an approach coupled autopilot. The autopilot's job is to relieve fatigue, not to do things which the pilot is incapable of. An altitude holding autopilot does the job of relieving fatigue just fine.



 It is not that difficult to hand fly approaches in the -10. In fact, it might be best for many GA pilots (who don't get enough practice) to hand fly approaches, even if the autopilot can do it,  just to keep really current.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:07 pm Post subject: Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

I agree in general that practicing approaches by hand is always a great idea, but when it counts, you want all the help you can get. There are enough other things to be doing and verifying and watching that letting the a/p fly for you is well worth it if it can.



That said, the Dynon will fly the lateral portion of the approach, and with a reasonable vertical speed set up, dialing in your altitudes on an approach make it pretty close to being coupled, just needing a little more monitoring. And, as was mentioned by someone else, Dynon is working on vertical guidance as well as XM weather and ADS-B weather. Everybody promises things like this, and Dynon may be a little slower to implement some of the features, but for the most part, they do get them done slowly, and they usually work quite well when they do, and they seem to always find a way to do it cheaper than the competition. I love the ADS-B traffic display on the Skyview, and it works just as well as it does on the G900X for a fraction of the cost. Also, as was mentioned, it's not a bad idea to go with dual backup batteries and dual ADAHRS, which would make your autopilot redundantly supported if a single failure occurred on the Skyview because of their network setup.



I have only installed one GRT, and have worked on a couple more. They are made to support just about anything out there, which makes them a lot harder to set up, but they are very flexible as well. AFS makes great equipment that give a lot of functionality and a lot of eye candy at a good price also. I haven't worked with the G3X at all, but hear great things about it, although I think I would prefer wide format screen to vertical format screen, but if you have enough screens, then that probably becomes mostly a non-issue. On moving map, vertical format is probably better. The Dynon has some great-looking stuff, and a great price tag. I'd probably stay away from any BMA stuff that may be floating around used.



I'll step down from the soap box now and go back into the world of silence that I have been spending so much time in lately.



do not archive



Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

C: 352-427-0285

F: 815-377-3694



On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Bob Turner wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 I have the GRT HX/HS and a fully coupled Trio autopilot, and of course I like the panel very much.

 

 Having said that, I really don't think too much emphasis should be placed on having an approach coupled autopilot. The autopilot's job is to relieve fatigue, not to do things which the pilot is incapable of. An altitude holding autopilot does the job of relieving fatigue just fine.

 

 It is not that difficult to hand fly approaches in the -10. In fact, it might be best for many GA pilots (who don't get enough practice) to hand fly approaches, even if the autopilot can do it,  just to keep really current.

 

 --------

 Bob Turner

 RV-10 QB

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=361869#361869

Strasnuts

Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 502
Location: Salt Lake City, UT

Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:34 pm Post subject: Re: Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

I agree.  The FAA requires a working autopilot before dispatch on single pilot jets. It's nice to have when initiating a missed approach and re-reading the alternate.

_________________
40936
RV-10 SB N801VR Flying
780 Hours
SuperSTOL 60 hours

Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:33 am Post subject: Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

As I get ready to go out and do some coupled approach button pushing and 

power setting exercises, I'd suggest that a AP setup capable of coupled 

GPS approaches is such a great capability, that it should be seriously 

considered.  I'm still amazed that I can setup for a standard GPS 

T-approach and not touch a thing until DH (complete hands-off requires 

trim interconnect and/or a modest power setting).  That's airliner-type 

capability.



I got my rating and have flown 100% of my actual, single pilot sans AP.  

A wing leveler would have been a game changer, lateral steering heaven, 

vertical steering unimaginable.



A fully coupled AP means maintaining proficiency at both hand flying, 

coupled AP operation, and several modes in between.  More work, not 

less.  But given that, the utility of being able to monitor a fully 

coupled approach when at a strange airport in low weather is pretty special.



I'm not familiar with the Trio or other APs and EFIS configs, but in my 

configuration, the AP is one of my main backup options in case of 

various failures.  It will fly the plane with an otherwise dead and cold 

panel while I twist-in maneuvers and monitor my analog instruments. 

Highly unlikely but something else to consider.



In any case, I agree that all of these configurations are great.  The 

price/performance of these experimental panels is pretty amazing.



Bill "GRT/HX 430W TT auto-trim" Watson



On 12/28/2011 9:31 PM, Bob Turner wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I have the GRT HX/HS and a fully coupled Trio autopilot, and of course I like the panel very much.



 Having said that, I really don't think too much emphasis should be placed on having an approach coupled autopilot. The autopilot's job is to relieve fatigue, not to do things which the pilot is incapable of. An altitude holding autopilot does the job of relieving fatigue just fine.



   It is not that difficult to hand fly approaches in the -10. In fact, it might be best for many GA pilots (who don't get enough practice) to hand fly approaches, even if the autopilot can do it,  just to keep really current.



 --------

 Bob Turner

 RV-10 QB





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=361869#361869

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:29 pm Post subject: Re: Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

I agree 100% with Bill:



"A fully coupled AP means maintaining proficiency at both hand flying, 

coupled AP operation, and several modes in between. More work, not 

less."



This is the airline/part 135 world, where pilots use autopilots all the time but also get frequent recurrent training. Unfortunately in the real world of GA, not everyone follows this model.



Some people have wondered if the Cirrus aircraft - with its parachute - encourages pilots to attempt things they otherwise wouldn't do.



I wonder the same thing about autopilots.



Just my two cents.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:28 pm Post subject: Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

I'm an unbiased observer on this subject .....  I don't fly IFR but do 

practice the GPS approach available from my Anywhere Map.  If I do 

something stupid and find myself in trouble, I have an option that may 

save my stupid butt.



I view a coupled approach as being in the same light.  Having it and not 

using it is far preferable to wanting it and not having it available.  

It's a tool available to save your butt when the brain goes out to lunch 

with task overload.



Preservation of of the pilot and passengers is high on my list of 

capabilities.



Linn

On 12/29/2011 3:29 PM, Bob Turner wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I agree 100% with Bill:



 "A fully coupled AP means maintaining proficiency at both hand flying,

 coupled AP operation, and several modes in between. More work, not

 less."



 This is the airline/part 135 world, where pilots use autopilots all the time but also get frequent recurrent training. Unfortunately in the real world of GA, not everyone follows this model.



 Some people have wondered if the Cirrus aircraft - with its parachute - encourages pilots to attempt things they otherwise wouldn't do.



 I wonder the same thing about autopilots.



 Just my two cents.



 --------

 Bob Turner

 RV-10 QB





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=361927#361927

Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:50 pm Post subject: Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

Upon reflection, I'd like to share a bit..

Like I said, I went out today for a little training on button pushing 

and power settings.  A very productive session.

However, going back to my initial flights with this panel, I recall that 

when I first started to use each function - lateral steering, GPS 

steering, Altitude hold, vertical steering,  GPS coupled approaches and 

ILS coupled approaches - each attempt was an adventure and were 

generally unsuccessful if not a bit scary the first couple of times.  

And I had a malfunctioning AP just to keep me on my toes.

That's the kind of adventure that can kill you when the shades are drawn.

As Linn suggested, you have to practice if this stuff is going to help 

rather than hurt.  I'd suggest that if you don't practice, it's better 

not to even think about it or perhaps even have it.

So, if I were VFR-only I know that I would use a basic autopilot with 

lateral steering.  I'd use it for altitude hold or even climbs and 

descents if it had that capability.  Personally, I wouldn't practice 

full approaches with it due to just plain laziness.  And if I did feel 

compelled to practice approaches, I'm sure I'd just go get the rating 

which is what I did.... but even then, I've learned if I don't practice 

and stay proficient, I might as well stay visual and pretend the 

capabilities aren't there.

So why not practice approaches "just in case"?  Because if "just in 

case" happens, the best thing to do is confess, ask for vectors and a 

descent to VFR.  I know that I can't hand fly an ILS to standard if I 

haven't stayed current and I probably couldn't get my AP to fly a 

coupled approach safely if I haven't practiced the button pushing.  But 

maybe that's just me.

Bill "i'm legal and working on becoming proficient" Watson

On 12/29/2011 5:24 PM, Linn Walters wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 I'm an unbiased observer on this subject .....  I don't fly IFR but do 

 practice the GPS approach available from my Anywhere Map.  If I do 

 something stupid and find myself in trouble, I have an option that may 

 save my stupid butt.

 I view a coupled approach as being in the same light.  Having it and 

 not using it is far preferable to wanting it and not having it 

 available.  It's a tool available to save your butt when the brain 

 goes out to lunch with task overload.

 Preservation of of the pilot and passengers is high on my list of 

 capabilities.

 Linn

 On 12/29/2011 3:29 PM, Bob Turner wrote:

> 

>

> I agree 100% with Bill:

>

> "A fully coupled AP means maintaining proficiency at both hand flying,

> coupled AP operation, and several modes in between. More work, not

> less."

>

> This is the airline/part 135 world, where pilots use autopilots all 

> the time but also get frequent recurrent training. Unfortunately in 

> the real world of GA, not everyone follows this model.

>

> Some people have wondered if the Cirrus aircraft - with its parachute 

> - encourages pilots to attempt things they otherwise wouldn't do.

>

> I wonder the same thing about autopilots.

>

> Just my two cents.

>

> --------

> Bob Turner

> RV-10 QB

>

>

> Read this topic online here:

>

> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=361927#361927

>

dlm34077(at)q.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:32 pm Post subject: Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

Having no working AP for the first 26 years of flying including numerous low IFR approaches and departures, one learns to be the pilot. Although on an IFR plan I arrived for my first two actual IFR approaches with the Cheltons in the 10 expecting a visual approach at both RNO and MYJ. The RNO ATIS stated "ILS 16R in use visibility 1-1/4 in smoke"; those skyway boxes came in handy for the hand flown approach. At MYJ the only weather for 300 miles was setting over the MYJ airport resulting in an RNAV6 approach from the right seat to a 400-1 in moderate rain. Check out the AP but be ready to hand fly; remember the computer between your ears Is much more capable and flexible than the AP if the pilot can put the flight path marker where it is supposed to be.   

   

Also remember that every once in a while ATC throws a wrench. Last September I was cleared for an RNAV 34 into 1H0 in St Louis in IMC. As I prepared to join the final and proceed inbound, ATC said that they had a jet passing above me and could I do a couple turns in the depicted holding pattern. I said OK (they cancelled the approach clearance) and at the fix I turned outbound (skyway boxes gone) using the green diamond (GPS track) I flew a track of 160 for about one minute and then turned inbound to a track of 340; arriving at the fix I again turned outbound one minute then inbound. ATC re-cleared me for the approach and out in the distance on the PFD , the skyway boxes were still there. The remainder of the approach was unremarkable.  

   

My advice; if you plan to fly IMC, practice hand flying , learn your equipment, work up to the lower minimums. The PFD, MFD, EIS displays make this so much easier than it used to be.   

   

--

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:52 am Post subject: Dynon Skyview vs. GRT HX EFIS...

Bill Watson

"As Linn suggested, you have to practice if this stuff is going to help 

rather than hurt.  I'd suggest that if you don't practice, it's better 

not to even think about it or perhaps even have it."



That's not a bad way to put it.  Personally, I think having an EFIS

that can fly a coupled approach is something I would never want to

be without, now that I have it...and know how to use it.  But, I like

flying IFR/IMC.  I think though that we suffer from one thing in

our group....everyone wants to have a great IFR capable plane, and

be able to do cool coupled approaches, but not everyone in that group

wants to actually practice and become proficient in the operation of

their system.  If you do not do this, you are only a statistic waiting

to happen when you launch into IMC.  I think having the tools is

great, but, if you aren't going to dedicated flight hours and time

to being proficient, just do yourself and everyone else a favor and

don't fly in those conditions.



Personally, I feel that the hand flying of the approach, with the

equipment, is the simple part.  If your primaries fail, that's when

folks are SOL.  But, my feeling is that if you plan to use coupled

approaches, you're better off practicing and using them every

chance you get.  I can hand fly with no problem. Sometimes I do,

just to make sure I still feel as relaxed.  But where you're really

going to run into problems is when you don't hit the right button,

or activate the right mode, or follow the correct sequence of

operations...when loading or flying an approach. It doesn't matter

then if you're coupled, or not.  If you're coupled, your plane is

going to do the same screwed up approach that you just messed up.

If you're not, you're going to quickly lose the ability to figure

out what the hell you just did, and you're going to become lost

for what to do next.  Your path on the screen is going to be redrawn

in some manner that doesn't make sense, and you won't know if you

should continue down the slope, or follow the pretty pink line.



So my suggestion is to practice and fly coupled approaches nearly

95% of the time.  The one thing you absolutely NEED to be able to

do with these FMS/EFIS systems is punch the buttons properly.  Flying

coupled is a perfect way to learn these sequences because it gets

your attention when your plane veers off course.  You quickly learn

what you need to do next time, and you practice, and practice, and

practice.  For me, the killer was an unexpected hold, and how to

set it up. I thought I could do it all, but one day I got thrown

a hold and I forgot how to quickly set one into the plan.  I

hand flew a sloppy oval to make do.  But then I had to go practice

so I wouldn't kill myself and family next time it comes up.

Actually, to be honest, it's time I go practice that one again.

But, you NEED to be able to make your avionics draw the course

you want....and if you can do that, a coupled approach is probably

going to be your safest bet for a successful approach and landing.

It makes it relaxing, and everything just flows.



If you think for a minute that you can't trust the system,

or yourself, to draw and fly the approach, not only should you

NOT be flying IMC/IFR, but you shouldn't bother using those

features until you are well practiced...because you need that

same course guidance to fly it by hand.  This ISN'T a matter

of hand flying vs. Coupling...this is a matter of EFIS/FMS

flying vs. being able to do the old needles.  You may have

been fine hand flying some needles, but when you fly today's

approaches, not all of that stuff is the same anymore.  Yes,

there are indicators to rely on, but GPS courses still only

do what you program them to do.  You would be better off to

call ATC and turn and run and head for a nearby ILS and use

your backup CDI on your backup Nav/Com/GPS...something

you know...(or was that "knew").   It simply isn't the same

world when you plug all of this into an EFIS...so either

get and be proficient, or ignore it all and forget about IFR/IMC

altogether.  There is no in-between, really.



..and, if someone tells me they wouldn't fly a coupled approach

in a system that is fully capable of coupled approaches, because

they can't trust the system....I'd seriously reconsider if I

could trust them in their airplane.  Again, you need to punch

the same buttons either way, if you want the approach to be

successful.  The AP just is a couple more buttons to get it to

sync properly.



Button currency is harder to obtain than hand-flying currency.



Also, our planes aren't invincible, so know when to go IFR,

and when to stay VFR.  Regardless of the pilot's ability,

there are times when it will be best to fly your airplane

in one way or the other.  Where I live, you can't go IFR all

the time...last night I had the chance to revisit that due

to icing potential.  VFR was better.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD

do not archive

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum