MIm20c Posted January 19, 2018 Report Share Posted January 19, 2018 1 minute ago, NJMac said: And frankly the costs on that isnt hateful at all. Maybe that is the easy way to tip toe into the pool Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk That’s not a tip toe, it will be a MASSIVE increase in safety and capability to have an HSI, GPSS, and new digital AP with the upset recovery. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder Posted January 19, 2018 Report Share Posted January 19, 2018 Here is a little better quality set of photos. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danb Posted January 19, 2018 Report Share Posted January 19, 2018 Peter I get it, the difference in the syn vis. Apples and oranges, chocolate and vanilla. Im used to being bashed for having a crummy G-1000, which I love that's all that matters. We currently have five pages of mostly nonsense on this subject, it makes for entertaining and enjoyment on these 10* days. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTK Posted January 19, 2018 Report Share Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Danb said: Peter I get it, the difference in the syn vis. Apples and oranges, chocolate and vanilla. Im used to being bashed for having a crummy G-1000, which I love that's all that matters. We currently have five pages of mostly nonsense on this subject, it makes for entertaining and enjoyment on these 10* days. I get it too Dan. But I for one am very dissapointed that there can be no objective approach. This is not about different tastes. It's about comparing and contrasting quantifiable things of the avionics we invest in. There can be no meaningful discussion when personal feelings, prejudices, biases, attacks of differing opinions and subjectivity enter into it. That's the nonsense imo. Edited January 19, 2018 by PTK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpcc Posted January 19, 2018 Report Share Posted January 19, 2018 PTK - in summary, you are saying the cost isn't worth the benefit, and some of the older boxes are a some performance issues that degrade the display. For those reasons, you would keep your gauges. Is that your position? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted January 19, 2018 Report Share Posted January 19, 2018 Some caution needs to be applied using some arguments... We know big G likes to hang out where the big spenders are... that is the easy part of being an ordinary sales guy.... MS's big spenders aren't showing their panels as much... On the other hand There is a group in the middle. They have bought their Forever Mooney and have decided to upgrade its panel. Some of these Forever Mooneys are M20Cs, M20Es, and a slew of M20Fs..... Some are in the US, a few are in the EU... All opinions are welcomed, but.... the ones that have first hand experience are the most valued. It is a real challenge to build a full IFR panel on a CB budget. Even the definition of being a CB has changed over the years.... Speaking of changing with the times... anyone that has watched a full length movie on an iPhone Retina display might have a skewed vision of what should be expected on their instrument panel... Anyone with a Garmin Watch is always looking at the newest iwatch with a teary eye... If you have the budget and the desire go all in and get a full Garmin panel mounted in your Forever Mooney.... that will be a 100amu expense... you will love it... somebody else will have to sell it when the day comes. If you want to sell your current plane to get the next one... This is a situation where you need to consider how much to spend to stay relevant in the market. Markets are always changing.... Anything you install today costs a ton to install. That installation money is immediately lost before the equipment gets outdated by the next decade's G device... The only time these things are considered an investment is when inflation is raging and it appears that your money spent, is actually gaining value... think oil embargo, odd/even gas lines, and horrible inflation of 15% or so per year, interest rates even higher... love bell bottom jeans? Spend it cause you want to use it. Not to sell it later hoping to get some value back... If all the competing planes in the used market have a G500txi, You then consider installing one just to sell the plane... my favorite modern CB technique.... buy a used one and get it installed. Peter's favorite... BK has almost come out with competition for the G5... a small color screen built by somebody else, but fully integrated with the BK legacy AP. BK has the KSN like a GTN That only one MSer has... Nothing like being locked into a single supplier... big G has done it. BK used to do it. Aspen And Avidyne have been the best regarding the open architecture, work with everybody, kind of company... If you are highly technical and like to read about integrating avionics... Go Aspen! If you like to sit back and say you bought the best... Go big G! If you have done your homework, you won't be dissapointed.... until the next update comes out... and the price isn't compatible... Expect one MSer to sell his plane with a nice panel attached... Another MSer will be selling his 100amu fully integrated panel with an attached plane... The educated MSer knows what he is buying. Even a CB comes to MS to get educated in what the best options are... I selected the O as my Forever Mooney.... it will be decades before I know if it was the right choice or not... Everyone's situations are different and will change over time... hopefully for the best. PP thoughts only, not a seer of the near, or distant future. Best regards, -a- 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylw314 Posted January 20, 2018 Report Share Posted January 20, 2018 @carusoam, I've been reading your posts for a while and getting used to your writing style, but I gotta know--in real life, do you actually speak in bullet points all the time?? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browncbr1 Posted January 21, 2018 Report Share Posted January 21, 2018 I flew some more approaches Friday and still getting used to all the data that is now in front of me. I didn’t realize before, but in the dual G5 setup, the actual localizer and glideslope sliders are presented also in the AI. You can literally fly the whole approach looking only at the AI. Move gotten used to flying with the gtn on the nav page and the aera660 on the map page following @Marauder ‘s advice. That is the way to do it, I’m convinced now. Maybe someday I’ll get to fly behind an aspen and I could give my final comparison opinions here. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted January 22, 2018 Report Share Posted January 22, 2018 On 1/15/2018 at 5:54 PM, PTK said: ...and, according to the NTSB, pilots in so equipped aircraft kill themselves at almost twice the rate than those with “steam”’ gauges. And the irony of it is that more often than not these pilots are more experienced and have higher ratings! Why? I’m all for increased sa and decreased pilot workload but something is drastically wrong. We are headed in the wrong direction. I hadn't yet seen this report thanks for mentioning it, thanks PTK! I'm thinking of upgrading to glass and am considering glass with round backup, or all glass. After reading these accident reports, I'm leaning towards the former. So to me, this is an important topic! Here's the link for anyone who also might be interested in it. https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1001.pdf I thought it was fascinating to read, and from reviewing I found that: Problems such as a blocked pitot tube intake that would have affected only the airspeed indicator of a conventional six pack display can result in loss of airspeed, altitude, and rate-of-climb information in some glass cockpit displays, or air data computer failure warning with multiple red X's depending on the manufacturer. The NTSB study included Mooneys in their accident evaluation, and there were no fatal glass cockpit accidents in the Mooney group (probably a small sample size function, but comforting to read) Apparently AOPA did a similar study (which I have not yet reviewed) and showed a decrease in fatal accident rates in glass cockpit equipped aircraft. Ill go through the AOPA article when I find it, but some lessons I learned from reading the NTSB report, it clearly tells me that it is critical in whatever system one gets, understanding the equipment and exactly what it's behavior would be on certain failures as we are all familiar with in our training with 6 packs, but is different for glass cockpit equipped aircraft. Also, that getting glass shouldn't allow a pilot to think he/she can get into more challenging weather safely because of glass. It is noted there is a much higher number of IFR /IMC flights in the glass group analyzed compared to the conventional 6 pack group in the NTSB study which very likely contributed to the difference reported. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJMac Posted January 22, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2018 Will dual g5's play nice with my ifd440? Assuming at least one would need to communicate for an Rnav approach for example. Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsxrpilot Posted January 22, 2018 Report Share Posted January 22, 2018 I think of glass as having all your eggs in one basket. And while that means a blocked pitot can wreck that basket, under normal operation, it's easier to monitor a single basket rather than 6 baskets simultaneously. I'm very confident I can shoot approaches to much lower minimums with my glass panel than I could before. The scan is just much simpler/quicker/easier. But I also have backups and all glass panels require backups. I anticipate that if my Aspen went to all X's on any IFR approach, I would immediately execute the missed approach and sort it out. I have a G5, an IFD540, an iPad, a Phone, and a compass to help me do that. Having SV on two of those screens is also a huge advantage. I've tried out using both the SV on the IFD and the SV on ForeFlight and am confident in an emergency situation, I can get on the ground using either one. For me, glass has been a huge improvement in safety and functional advantage for my flying. As they say, YMMV. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danb Posted January 22, 2018 Report Share Posted January 22, 2018 I'd like to see the glass vs steam comparison in relation to flight hour of the pilot, many new pilots only know glass, one wonders if a lot of the fatal crashes are to more inexperienced pilots relying on the glass? There is a built in confidence level with the situational picture glass depicts. Lots or Cirri out there most all are full glass panels. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_elliott Posted January 22, 2018 Report Share Posted January 22, 2018 8 hours ago, JohnB said: It is noted there is a much higher number of IFR /IMC flights in the glass group analyzed compared to the conventional 6 pack group in the NTSB study which very likely contributed to the difference reporte There is the answer to your question, Peter. It is like doing a cancer study of women who dont smoke vs men who do. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder Posted January 22, 2018 Report Share Posted January 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Danb said: I'd like to see the glass vs steam comparison in relation to flight hour of the pilot, many new pilots only know glass, one wonders if a lot of the fatal crashes are to more inexperienced pilots relying on the glass? There is a built in confidence level with the situational picture glass depicts. Lots or Cirri out there most all are full glass panels. Like everything measured, it is the variables used to measure that will provide the most correct answer. Is the glass accident rate higher because these pilots fly more IFR than their steam counterparts? More risky flying than their steam counterparts? What I can tell you is that the additional information provided by glass certainly augments what I had with steam. Where I think people get into trouble is not understanding how their equipment works and more importantly, the fault modes. Peter has pointed out the big red X on a number of occasions. The You Tube video by Matt G showing an Aspen going red X was a classic example. The reason the X came up was because they encountered pitot icing in clear air. The Aspen clearly told them to check the pitot heat and when they did and turned on the pitot heat, the system came back. Is that a design issue or a user issue? Either way, the system behaved as the documentation said it would. Both Garmin and Aspen require backups to their PFD displays. There is a reason for this... A glass AHRS driven attitude indicator going belly up is no different than a mechanical attitude indicator going belly up. You go to your backups. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruiser Posted January 22, 2018 Report Share Posted January 22, 2018 I find several flaws in the premise that "glass" causes accidents. This statement is different that more glass panel airplanes are "involved" in accidents. 1. I can find no basis in fact that glass panels are the cause of accidents because every airplane equipped with glass is required to have traditional "steam" type gauges are backups. 2. Please explain how the "glass" can be blamed if there is "steam" available to be used in the case of glass failure? Wouldn't the root cause of the accident be "pilot failed to use traditional instruments" 3. How can the accident be blamed on the "glass" if the "glass" wasn't working? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82Mike Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 On 1/17/2018 at 12:54 PM, Marauder said: Opinions yes, but your one man crusade of slamming Aspen is getting old. You never owned one and everything you spew negative is based on secondhand information. This is a disservice to those people who are looking for an opinion based on firsthand experience. Here is mine: JPI products (830 or 900) sent back for repair or firmware updates to FIX a problem: 3 times Garmin GTN 650 taken back to the shop to FIX open squelch issues: 2 times Garmin GNC 255B product taken back to FIX a problem: 0 times JPI causing another open squelch issue not related to the actual GTN open squelch issue: 1 time STEC 60-2 taken in to FIX a problem: 1 time L-3 ESI-500 taken back to FIX an issue: 0 times L-3 9000+ taken back to FIX an issue: 0 times Electronics International RPM, MP & FP gauges sent back to FIX a problem: 0 times Aspen PFD or MFD sent back to FIX a problem: 0 times All of these electronic products can have new firmware installed to enhance or improve the product. I'm not counting those in unless they FIX a problem. And as just as a point of reference, since 2012 I have spent more time with avionics shops than most people on this site. I research not only what is on the open web about these products but also speak at length with the avionics shop employees about issues they encounter with glass systems. Where I will agree with you is the presentation capabilities of these devices. I'm not some glass panel junkie who got my private and instrument on glass panels. I spent years flying steam as an instrument rated pilot. I was a late adopter of both the GPS and glass technologies. I was convinced that GPS was another fad like LORAN-C (anyone else own a LORAN-C unit?). I shared the opinion of many on this site that glass is overkill. Now that I have 6 direct years experience with these systems, I have learned these products add so much more to the experience of flying. Whether it is providing more information, safety, redundancy or enhancing the capabilities of what I already (GPSS for my STEC 60-2 autopilot for example) -- it's all good. This is so on the money. I also learned to fly steam 35 years ago. I am all in on the argument that the 750/650/440 versus 530/430 is not all that much of a difference. I own a 750 and train my students on a 430. Like them both. But when it comes to PFD/MFD (I have 3 aspens and a G5), there is simply no comparison to the steam it replaced. I never found the tapes hard to read? Guess that is just me? But information and scan in hard IFR is 10000000000000000% easier. Guess I am a 56 year old millineal now lol 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DXB Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 Similar to Chris' panel, I've had a number of issues on components of my less expansive glass install 3 years ago. I've had bugs needing correction in my GTN650, STEC-30, and especially my JPI EDM900, which gets bottom marks for customer service. My Aspen PFD and KT74 however have been flawless in operation from day 1. Of course it would be nice to upgrade Aspen screen, have a faster processor to better support synth vision, and have a backup mode if airspeed is lost. But in current form, it performs its core mission flawlessly. I see nothing else available that I would consider for a pfd if I were doing an install at the same price point today. It's a testament to their initial design that it has held up so well over a decade. As a CB, I might contemplate dual G5s as a slightly cheaper option to the Aspen pro pfd, but I doubt they could provide the beautifully integrated navigational functionality of the Aspen. If money were no object, the G500x would probably win out over a 2-3 Aspen install. Nevertheless, the potential availability of the Dynon integrated suite is a game changer. Right now I don't see anything even remotely competitive from a value perspective, particularly when you consider a full install with the autopilot. Garmin and Aspen would need deep price cuts and/or new products to stay competitive in the market segment. In this context, Aspen's older technology may be a greater liability. I'm certain this has occurred to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylw314 Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 On 1/22/2018 at 12:45 PM, Cruiser said: I find several flaws in the premise that "glass" causes accidents. This statement is different that more glass panel airplanes are "involved" in accidents. 1. I can find no basis in fact that glass panels are the cause of accidents because every airplane equipped with glass is required to have traditional "steam" type gauges are backups. 2. Please explain how the "glass" can be blamed if there is "steam" available to be used in the case of glass failure? Wouldn't the root cause of the accident be "pilot failed to use traditional instruments" 3. How can the accident be blamed on the "glass" if the "glass" wasn't working? Those are easy to answer--I can recall reading about accidents where known failure of an AI was a contributing factor. Even though the AI failure was known, it fails in a way that still displays (incorrect) information, it becomes a distraction since it is part of the instrument scan, which contributes to disorientation. Hence the suggestion to carry around instrument covers so you can cover it up if it fails. I think the argument that this conclusion can be applied to glass is at least worthy of consideration. The glass panel IS the routine instrument scan, and it can have different failure modes, some of which may be more distracting than others. I don't know if you can turn them off without impacting other systems to minimize the distraction. While you can have backup instruments, they are generally NOT arranged in a fashion typical for your instrument scan, nor do most people practice this. I agree though, that the premise that glass instruments cause accidents is suspect. Glass is associated more with accidents, but that does not establish cause/effect. In fact, as pointed out already, the converse is equally likely to be true--that high-risk profiles "cause" people to have glass instruments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJMac Posted January 24, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 Nevertheless, the potential availability of the Dynon integrated suite is a game changer. Right now I don't see anything even remotely competitive from a value perspective, particularly when you consider a full install with the autopilot. Garmin and Aspen would need deep price cuts and/or new products to stay competitive in the market segment. In this context, Aspen's older technology may be a greater liability. I'm certain this has occurred to them. This is where Ive ended up. Id hate to put 25 or 30k into an aspen system now only to be dated tech when the Dynon gets approved. So ill just sit on some cash and wait for the chance to spend it with Dynon. Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve W Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 11 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said: So how much is the entire SkyView system supposed to cost installed, anyway? Jim Holds up pinky... 1 meeelllion dollars. (I haven't seen installed, I've seen hardware costs in the $16,000 range) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markejackson02 Posted January 25, 2018 Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 I started flying long enough ago that a standard part of IFR was wearing a stopwatch on a lanyard. Shot my first NDB approach and was about a needle width off. When we broke out of the clouds we were a good mile right of the runway. My instructor said "That's why its called a non-precision approach." Short answer is it's way-way easier. Anything that makes life easier is better (in my opinion. :-) ) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccray Posted January 25, 2018 Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 1 hour ago, bluehighwayflyer said: So how much is the entire SkyView system supposed to cost installed, anyway? Jim Equipment cost for a 2 screen system with redundant gps, dual adahrs, ADSB in and out, engine monitor including probes, and a 2 axis digital autopilot is $20k in parts. STC will hopefully be 2-3k, plus the cost of install. If we’re lucky we get out of the shop for $30-$35k. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJMac Posted January 25, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 Equipment cost for a 2 screen system with redundant gps, dual adahrs, ADSB in and out, engine monitor including probes, and a 2 axis digital autopilot is $20k in parts. STC will hopefully be 2-3k, plus the cost of install. If we’re lucky we get out of the shop for $30-$35k. Which makes me wonder, having adsb in and out already and edm 900, wouldn’t the cost of an aspen 2000 and a trutrac be same or less money and I can play with it a year or two sooner?Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smccray Posted January 25, 2018 Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, NJMac said: Which makes me wonder, having adsb in and out already and edm 900, wouldn’t the cost of an aspen 2000 and a trutrac be same or less money and I can play with it a year or two sooner? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Seems reasonable enough to me. I would be reluctant to pull the trigger on anything that isn’t part of one of the combined systems myself. If I were looking at options in the near term I would look at the Garmin G5 and a portable mfd (e.g. 796) and make do. Add the autopilot when you can and then expand as you are able. If Dynon is successful Garmin will have a competing product. I would bet $ that it will be built on the same CAN bus protocols that underly the G5 and the GFC500 installation. i’ve said it elsewhere- Aspen, Avidyne, JPI, other stand alone instrument companies are not in a good competitive position. I wouldn’t put any $ into Aspen as I don’t believe they have a long term viable business model. Edited to add- I hope i’m wrong about Aspen et al- the companies all provide tremendous value to GA Edited January 25, 2018 by smccray 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N6758N Posted January 25, 2018 Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 Garmin has announced/released the TXI series as an upgrade to replace the G500/600 series. It's designed to be installed with minimal modifications to aircraft already equipped with this existing system. I'm having a really really hard time believing that Aspen is not going to do something similar instead of fading away. These guys were the leader in retrofit glass for a long time, does anyone actually think they are going to go away without putting up a fight? A new Aspen with larger screens, better resolution, perhaps touch screen(s) would not be a huge feat for them. Just my $.02- but I'm inclined to think some others like @gsxrpilot and @Marauder would tend to agree... 1 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.