M016576 Posted January 15, 2017 Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 all this certification talk doesn't change the fact that none of these things can legally drive, or serve as an attitude or rate reference, for an autopilot. (although I'm sure it's related in one way, shape or form). mind-numbing. Should be such a simple piece of code.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N201MKTurbo Posted January 15, 2017 Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 Read this: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-181.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder Posted January 15, 2017 Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 Read this:https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-181.pdf Based on what I am reading, it allows part 23 to have a degraded mode if they complete the testing for TSO C201.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder Posted January 15, 2017 Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said: Read this:https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-181.pdf Well, that was interesting. I replied to the post and only the first 7 words stuck. Hmmm.... The document turbo posted explains a lot. Garmin introduced the G5 as a primary replacement. Based on the additional testing required to verify capability under TSO C201, I can understand why it is not certified as a backup. Garmin either wants to concentrate on the primary replacement market or hasn't completed the testing to allow it to be used as a certified backup. Considering the price difference of a non-certifiable G5 backup versus a legal backup like L-3's ESI-500, I can understand the hesitation on spending a lot of certification dollars for a product that would be a backup to glass. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Edited January 16, 2017 by Marauder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted January 15, 2017 Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 (edited) That is quite a read! 1) It takes a huge amount of memory (cognitive type) to hold onto all the details involved... 2) These devices are measuring accelerations in about six different ways. Three linear and three rotational. 3) To do this measuring they use secondary systems to account for some accelerations like pitot systems that can measure a plane's linear acceleration... My mechanical AI has difficulty doing this on its own for the same reasons... 4) certification is a huge task, accounting for everything while providing safety to the end user. 5) Support data can from pitot, gps and other sources like the European and Russian satellites. 6) the electronic AI has to know and switch from data sources as they fail, and give a heads-up to the pilot. 7) degraded data is a lot better than a big red X. This is what I read and remembered long enough to write this list. I am only a PP, not an instrument guru... Best regards, -a- Edited January 15, 2017 by carusoam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.