TruTrak Autopilot Pre Order's / Status Update

[cliffy]

And with 3 holidays coming up ??  Who knows how long? Remember, its a government project:-) 

[DustinNwind]

7 minutes ago, PearceBK said:

Hi Folks, 

Still waiting to hear back from the FAA on the final AML to see what airframes are to be included. I think the FAA is just moving slow right now because it took me 42 days to get my card for my part 107 cert.....

Does that mean it's guaranteed for the M20E?

[Navi]

FWIW … some Aspen <> TT/BK news...

 

New Aspen software will include..

 

- ALT set and VS set (additions) to the TT interface, (Heading and Baro already there.)

- Free unlock for the FULL HSI. (more to the story here if you are interested)

- $$$ (to be determined, 500.00 is the rumour) unlock for TAS, GS, OAT and winds data.  (called a "Data Bar")  No hardware, the OAT probe is already in both versions of the RSM.

 

Sweeeet….

 

Cap

[BarkerBK]

On 11/22/2019 at 4:23 PM, DustinNwind said:

Does that mean it's guaranteed for the M20E?

Yes, guaranteed that the M20E will be included since that was used for the basis of the certification. 

[jamesm]

What about m20c?

 

[cliffy]

On 10/22/2019 at 8:21 AM, PearceBK said:

Hi Folks, 

Here's the link to the youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl0PpWYBHfw

@cliffy As far as the model list goes, we want all M20 models but the FAA may have different thought on that. We expect a final model list from them in the next couple of weeks. 

@NJMac IAS feature is something we are seriously looking at, and mostly likely will roll in to the experimental market first, before it gets to certified. As of right now the AeroCruze 100 only accepts digital signals, and no analog signals even if they are converted to digital through a navigator. We're actively working to build out the feature set on the AeroCruze 100 series, but we need to get past the STC push first. 

 

As far as what models that was discussed in this previous note from BK  He is keeping us up to date as best he can I am sure of that. 

Edited November 25, 2019 by cliffy

[Bob R]

Ok. So I have dual G5's I'm my M20E, obviously one is the AH AND the other the HSI with GMU11 and GAD29B. I am starting to hear that with the TT System, I will not have GPSS steering without installing some sort of switch. What will that do for ease of use and af course, safety of the aircraft. It most certainly does piss me off Garmin wants to NOT interface completely with other systems such as TT  Can anyone she'd some light on this subject?

Thanks, Bob

 

[carusoam]

No need to be disappointed by Big G not playing fairly with the other suppliers...

BK didn’t do it either...

That is just the crappy aviation business model some companies use...
 

Are you sure it is just a switch? Or a whole communications box to transfer data after you flip the switch...?

 

 

Now back onto what works, with open architecture, and what is needed, and who supplies it...

Let’s see if @Jeevis around for a Tru Trak update...

Since BK is involved, we can ask @PearceBK as well...

Best regards,

-a-

[ArtVandelay]

The problem with open architecture is it increases certification costs, so why should company X test with company Ys products? It’s only done when company X is new and trying to establish itself. Let company Y do the testing of their products.
Garmin doesn’t even support its own products. Example G3X doesn’t support the GDL88.



Tom

[Jesse Saint]

The TruTrak will only get heading (magnetic) and Baro sync from the G5. It will get GPSS from the navigator directly. The switch is to select which source it will use. Many auto pilots do the same thing. Why the G5 can drive old century and king auto pilots and not the TruTrak, your guess is as good as mine. 

[McMooney]

My understanding of the G5, it provides gpss via the heading interface, why wouldn't it work for a trutrak?

[EricJ]

6 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

The problem with open architecture is it increases certification costs, so why should company X test with company Ys products? It’s only done when company X is new and trying to establish itself. Let company Y do the testing of their products.
Garmin doesn’t even support its own products. Example G3X doesn’t support the GDL88.

Tom

Open architectures ultimately decrease costs for everybody if the interfaces are standardized.   This simplifies pretty much everything and increases economy of scale for the industry, e.g., the interface gets certified, then you demonstrate compliance with the interface, which is...standardized, so standardized compliance tests can be used.    Most industries make good use of this, but once in a while somebody like Apple or Garmin decides that closed architectures suit them better.  

 

[ArtVandelay]

Open architectures ultimately decrease costs for everybody if the interfaces are standardized.   This simplifies pretty much everything and increases economy of scale for the industry, e.g., the interface gets certified, then you demonstrate compliance with the interface, which is...standardized, so standardized compliance tests can be used.    Most industries make good use of this, but once in a while somebody like Apple or Garmin decides that closed architectures suit them better.  
 

I doubt the FAA would accept a generic standardized compliance test, if that were the case, we wouldn’t need approval for specific GPS boxes, which Trutrak (certified version) obtained.


Tom

[MIm20c]

On 11/22/2019 at 9:58 PM, Navi said:

FWIW … some Aspen <> TT/BK news...

 

New Aspen software will include..

 

- ALT set and VS set (additions) to the TT interface, (Heading and Baro already there.)

- Free unlock for the FULL HSI. (more to the story here if you are interested)

- $$$ (to be determined, 500.00 is the rumour) unlock for TAS, GS, OAT and winds data.  (called a "Data Bar")  No hardware, the OAT probe is already in both versions of the RSM.

 

Sweeeet….

 

Cap

Sounds like you’re referring to the E5?  If so that’s going to make a really nice system. Currently Chief Aircraft is selling the unit for $4180 OTC. 

[Navi]

3 hours ago, McMooney said:

My understanding of the G5, it provides gpss via the heading interface, why wouldn't it work for a trutrak?

The issue is, the G5 is a one trick pony.. It can ACCEPT inputs, bit is unable to internally SWITCH between sources and "pass the data through" it's circuity.  Others , like the Aspen , have a panel "hard" switch to do this, and whatever the Aspen displays, as a source, is "passed on"  to the AP, IF it is in what is called "GPS format" (which is just a particular common data sentence) the TruTrak will dutifully follow it along.  Neither display will INTERNALLY GENERATE any steering info other than the heading information

So.... If you want to use the G5 heading info and anything else, you need an external switch to move from the G5 output to an alternate steering source.  Not difficult, just not as "clean" a setup.

Many install the same switch to bypass a failed display to get  steering data direct from the navigator.

Nav

[Navi]

6 minutes ago, MIm20c said:

Sounds like you’re referring to the E5?  If so that’s going to make a really nice system. Currently Chief Aircraft is selling the unit for $4180 OTC. 

Ya...... Referring to the E5, but I understand that ALL the Aspen models are capable..

Within  my budget, the TT <> Aspen is definitely the "sweet spot" .

 

Nav

 

 

[EricJ]

26 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

I doubt the FAA would accept a generic standardized compliance test, if that were the case, we wouldn’t need approval for specific GPS boxes, which Trutrak (certified version) obtained.


Tom

That's what TSOs are, so the FAA is fine with the idea of standard-based testing.   If the GPS boxes all used the same software interfaces (i.e., it was standardized), then the test only needs to be developed once.

There are already physical-layer standards that are used, (e.g., RS-232, Arinc429), and some standardized protocols are used (there are long lists in the configuration options on my IFD), but at higher levels the differences are not standardized.   Many industries standardize very complex interoperabilities (e.g., cellular communications, computing peripherals like printers/plotters/scanners, bluetooth, WiFi, etc., etc.), so it's just the willingness of the industry to do it or not.  

[tmo]

On 11/23/2019 at 3:58 AM, Navi said:

Free unlock for the FULL HSI. (more to the story here if you are interested)

Do tell...  And, will it interface to a KFC-200 via an EA100?

[tmo]

On 11/23/2019 at 3:58 AM, Navi said:

Free unlock for the FULL HSI. (more to the story here if you are interested)

Do tell...  And, will it interface to a KFC-200 via an EA100?

[tmo]

On 11/23/2019 at 3:58 AM, Navi said:

Free unlock for the FULL HSI. (more to the story here if you are interested)

Do tell...  And, will it interface to a KFC-200 via an EA100?

[Andy95W]

5 hours ago, Navi said:

The issue is, the G5 is a one trick pony.. It can ACCEPT inputs, bit is unable to internally SWITCH between sources and "pass the data through" it's circuity.  Others , like the Aspen , have a panel "hard" switch to do this, and whatever the Aspen displays, as a source, is "passed on"  to the AP, IF it is in what is called "GPS format" (which is just a particular common data sentence) the TruTrak will dutifully follow it along.  Neither display will INTERNALLY GENERATE any steering info other than the heading information

So.... If you want to use the G5 heading info and anything else, you need an external switch to move from the G5 output to an alternate steering source.  Not difficult, just not as "clean" a setup.

Many install the same switch to bypass a failed display to get  steering data direct from the navigator.

Nav

I agree with @McMooney.  I've posted a screenshot, below, of the page from the Pilot's Manual.  It clearly says that the GPSS is "emulated" by the G5 and output using the heading bug.  You simply fly the autopilot in heading mode, the G5 outputs the proper signal.

So why wouldn't that work with the TruTrak, just like it will with a Century or STEC autopilot?

[Jesse Saint]

It emulated an analog heading bug for old auto pilots. The TruTrak only accepts digital heading. It will fly the heading bug off the G5, but not GPSS. Garmin could do it, but they probably won't.

[Navi]

2 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

I agree with @McMooney.  I've posted a screenshot, below, of the page from the Pilot's Manual.  It clearly says that the GPSS is "emulated" by the G5 and output using the heading bug.  You simply fly the autopilot in heading mode, the G5 outputs the proper signal.

So why wouldn't that work with the TruTrak, just like it will with a Century or STEC autopilot?

Hi Andy!

Note the words " may be emulated by using the ANALOGUE heading bug output"  This is  the old system of guiding the autopilot by a varying + or - DC voltage.

The TruTrak (and other modern APs ) will only listen to the new standard ARINC 429 data stream  . TruTrak " cracked"  the data code sent by the G5 and the new software will listen to the Garmin data stream. Worky good as long as Garmin does not change it. (Garmin uses a proprietary data code to intercommunicate with it's own products. )

Interestingly, the old analogue system TENDS to emulate GPSS (progressive) steering by its naturally progressive analogue voltage signal, sort of..   It is slower and less precise and is slower in responding to a variation.  New digital APs are VERY responsive to digital  inputs, and GPSS was  programmed to "anticipate" the turn and "smooth" the (inherent) hard digital response to the course variation.

Garmin could have done a lot better than this....  (IMHO)  :)

Nav

[Andy95W]

@Navi-  great explanation. Thanks!

[Navi]

3 hours ago, tmo said:

Do tell...  And, will it interface to a KFC-200 via an EA100?

Yes, and more.. there is an optional altitude preselect avbl.. Ck this   https://aspenavionics.com/products/aps4a-altitude-preselect

Nav