Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
New GRT Autopilot
- Thread starter mototopo
- Start date
rleffler
Well Known Member
These work with the GRT EFIS and the GRT Servos.
If you have Trutrak servos, you still need a Trutrak AP head. There is no functionality change in regards on how Trutrak servos work with GRT EFIS.
Paul K
Well Known Member
A couple of thoughts
that maybe the GRT or others can enlighten me on:
1, If the EFIS controlling the AP "goes down" will you loose AP functions as well?
2, Still need a third source of horizon, the TT provides that? Do I need to add an ADI or other AH?
3, If you have dual AHRS and one fails, what is the tie breaker? Is there an actual AP function independent of the AHRS and EFIS to fly a heading until you figure it out?
4, What's the total cost in addition to the HX for the AP function?
I know that all the other EFIS makers are doing the same thing and the above questions apply to them as well. I would love to hear your thoughts.
that maybe the GRT or others can enlighten me on:
1, If the EFIS controlling the AP "goes down" will you loose AP functions as well?
2, Still need a third source of horizon, the TT provides that? Do I need to add an ADI or other AH?
3, If you have dual AHRS and one fails, what is the tie breaker? Is there an actual AP function independent of the AHRS and EFIS to fly a heading until you figure it out?
4, What's the total cost in addition to the HX for the AP function?
I know that all the other EFIS makers are doing the same thing and the above questions apply to them as well. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Radomir
Well Known Member
Paul, you can view this as a lower cost alternative. If things you mentioned are critical then buying a TT autopilot will still work. For most VFR flying this is a very welcome move... it provides all that functionality at a fraction of a cost. There are ways to have backups here even without buying a TT autopilot... (you may need two screens and of course dual AHRS at least).. but it's doable that way too.. This is more of a "what are you most comfortable with..." kind of a thing.
I personally like to have a "Tie-breaker" that relies on different code to help me decide what is trying to lie to me when I am IFR - my TT control head can fly it's servos very well from it's own platform if my dual screen/dual AHRS GRT decides to play "guess who". But that is for serious IFR flying!
For VFR flying, I see nothing wrong with going direct from the EFIS to the servos - and GRT has learned from other companies servo hardware issues in the design of their own. To me, this looks like a nice, efficient solution for someone with a single Sport system, or those who are actually doing VFR flying instead of IFR. Of course, you can back the GRT up in ways other than with the autopilot as well.
Paul
For VFR flying, I see nothing wrong with going direct from the EFIS to the servos - and GRT has learned from other companies servo hardware issues in the design of their own. To me, this looks like a nice, efficient solution for someone with a single Sport system, or those who are actually doing VFR flying instead of IFR. Of course, you can back the GRT up in ways other than with the autopilot as well.
Paul
Paul K
Well Known Member
I am talking IFR flying
I really liked the idea of an independent stand alone auto pilot to give me a hand if I have to figure out what is going on with anything else that isn't working at the moment. I am assuming that it isn't the auto pilot that is going wrong but if it were the auto pilot operating differently than both EFIS's, that would be obvious as well and result in a disengage and land at a nearby airport or continue on hand flying.
The servos have a castle nut to solve a well known issue with TT servos and that is good. I am hoping TT will eventually upgrade all their servos but that is a different thread.
If I am over reacting, it's because every time I go out alone for "something to do" I practice failures of various pieces of equipment and am always wondering about this or that happening and what I would do to respond. I am also planning my new panel and all these really cool developments make it really hard to settle on a final configuration.
I really liked the idea of an independent stand alone auto pilot to give me a hand if I have to figure out what is going on with anything else that isn't working at the moment. I am assuming that it isn't the auto pilot that is going wrong but if it were the auto pilot operating differently than both EFIS's, that would be obvious as well and result in a disengage and land at a nearby airport or continue on hand flying.
The servos have a castle nut to solve a well known issue with TT servos and that is good. I am hoping TT will eventually upgrade all their servos but that is a different thread.
If I am over reacting, it's because every time I go out alone for "something to do" I practice failures of various pieces of equipment and am always wondering about this or that happening and what I would do to respond. I am also planning my new panel and all these really cool developments make it really hard to settle on a final configuration.
Brantel
Well Known Member
For those that want the triple redundancy that a stand alone AP provides in IMC, just slap in one of the $1000 ADI/Mini Efis/Gemini solutions available now and still save yourself 3 to 4 grand. (just a guess do your own math)
There is more than one way to get there and some options are less expensive than others....
There is more than one way to get there and some options are less expensive than others....
Just to suggest another option:
Dynon sells the D6 EFIS for $1600. This gives yop a full attitude, airspeed, altitude, and heading backup. You can use GRT as the AP and the D6 as your backup for significantly less than a stand alone autopilot, and you will have much more data to assist you in a situation where you need to decide which unit to trust.
Dynon sells the D6 EFIS for $1600. This gives yop a full attitude, airspeed, altitude, and heading backup. You can use GRT as the AP and the D6 as your backup for significantly less than a stand alone autopilot, and you will have much more data to assist you in a situation where you need to decide which unit to trust.
That is also an excellent alternative, so long as you stay current flying with it....I just wish it came in a 2-1/4" package.....(after seeing it at OSH, I'm not sure it can - the screen would be REALLY tiny).
So Dynon, there's your next challenge - build one for a small hole....
I am a big fan of GRT and have had great experience with their product and service, yet I would hesitate to put all of my eggs in one basket so speak. As others have mentioned, for VFR type flying this would be a great way of going but for IFR, I would not be comfortable with it. TT has been very solid A/P and I think of it as my back up during IMC just to keep me right side up.
Here is my thinking and please correct me if I am wrong I am just starting IFR.
I have my 430W linked to both my Dynon 10a (serial connection) and my GRT SX. (arinc converter) I am using the Dynon AP74 which currently only fly's horizontal poisoning. From what I was told this week, Dynon will hopefully have the AP76 back on the market some time early next year. If I add the AP76 and the HS34 then I would be able to fly an approach (vertical positioning) with the AP. This will allow me to watch the approach on my GRT and fly it with the Dynon.
I am very happy with my GRT but keeping the AP through my 10A will give me redundancy flying IFR.
BTW I just completed 10 hours flight time and the Dynon AP flew about 8 to 9 hours of it without a single flaw.
I have my 430W linked to both my Dynon 10a (serial connection) and my GRT SX. (arinc converter) I am using the Dynon AP74 which currently only fly's horizontal poisoning. From what I was told this week, Dynon will hopefully have the AP76 back on the market some time early next year. If I add the AP76 and the HS34 then I would be able to fly an approach (vertical positioning) with the AP. This will allow me to watch the approach on my GRT and fly it with the Dynon.
I am very happy with my GRT but keeping the AP through my 10A will give me redundancy flying IFR.
BTW I just completed 10 hours flight time and the Dynon AP flew about 8 to 9 hours of it without a single flaw.
Last edited:
My 2 cents here,
The way I see AP as redundancy for IFR is that the AP be able to fly the plane (keep the wings level) in case of instrument (EIFS in this case) failure. If you?re AP is only driven thru the EIFS, then it is really not a redundancy.
I see your set up more as a additional tool for flying IFR, which I think it is great and very handy.
Yep. We're flying enough IFR these days, despite others saying it isn't necessary, to avoid this situation. I'm now certain, after talking to GRT two years in a row at Oshkosh, that my EFIS plans for all of my future aircraft are going to other vendors. I have almost 700hrs behind GRT equipment.
Mehrdad, Tim listed having both a GRT SX, as well as a Dynon EFIS with AP. This is full redundancy. The GRT is a standalone EFIS, the Dynon is an EFIS with an AP. Yes, he might lose an EFIS+AP, or he might just lose an EFIS. No matter what, he still has an EFIS, and that's better than losing an EFIS against a standalone AP.
It's a real beauty of using the Dynon D10A as an autopilot. It costs much less than just a standalone AP ($3,700), and if your main EFIS fails, you have a "Free" EFIS to get down with instead of just black box.
It's a real beauty of using the Dynon D10A as an autopilot. It costs much less than just a standalone AP ($3,700), and if your main EFIS fails, you have a "Free" EFIS to get down with instead of just black box.
I am failing to see the logic here in terms of redundancy.
If my AP controlled solely via the EFIS (Dynon or GRT), if I lose the EFIS then I have lost the AP as well.
In my case, and my logic, I have dual EFIS, dual AHAR and TT AP. If I lose both of my EFIS, I still have my TT to keep me right side up and give me time to troubleshoot if I need to. I also have a 430 that can drive the TT AP for approach if I need to. With integrated system I will not have any of that, right?
Plus, I am wondering how long it will take for Dynon and GRT to mature to the level that other AP are already!!!
Scott,
I am also interested in your reasoning?
Dave Cole
Well Known Member
What is it that you have learned through 700 hours of flying behind GRT equipment and talking to GRT that would lead you to make such a strong negative statement?
Mike D
Well Known Member
Loved the AP and maping updates
I went by the GRT booth several times this year. Personally, I was very happy to see GRT offer their own AP. I also liked the updated map software to the non-synthetic mapping.
You always have the option to go with a independent AP. So maybe I am missing something, but I don?t see a problem here, just another option.
For VFR X-country trips, the integrated AP will relieve some of the work to hold a track and altitude. For the IFR folks, you can choose the TT or any other independent AP.
Scott, Is there something I am not seeing that would keep me from buying GRT in the future? PM me your opinion.
I hope we don?t get into the debate which EFIS is best. Stein and Paul already gave great responses in the OSH forum on choosing an EFIS. (And that answer was there is no best, it depends on your mission.)
I went by the GRT booth several times this year. Personally, I was very happy to see GRT offer their own AP. I also liked the updated map software to the non-synthetic mapping.
You always have the option to go with a independent AP. So maybe I am missing something, but I don?t see a problem here, just another option.
For VFR X-country trips, the integrated AP will relieve some of the work to hold a track and altitude. For the IFR folks, you can choose the TT or any other independent AP.
Scott, Is there something I am not seeing that would keep me from buying GRT in the future? PM me your opinion.
I hope we don?t get into the debate which EFIS is best. Stein and Paul already gave great responses in the OSH forum on choosing an EFIS. (And that answer was there is no best, it depends on your mission.)
erich weaver
Well Known Member
I don't get how the integrated AP would lessen the workload for staying on track and at altitude. Just put the TruTrak AP in GPS mode and hit altitude hold and you are set.
I agree on the second point- it's not clear what the issue is with GRT
Erich
Mike D
Well Known Member
Sorry for the miscommunication. Just a clarification.
I did not mean the integrated AP would be any better than the TT. I was just trying to say the integrated AP is not redundant for the EFIS. The integrated AP is a much lower price and IMO should be used as a tool for VFR. It gives us VFR pilots a cost effective tool to help us free our hands for the occasional map work or drink of water on a long X-country.
Options are good.
I did not mean the integrated AP would be any better than the TT. I was just trying to say the integrated AP is not redundant for the EFIS. The integrated AP is a much lower price and IMO should be used as a tool for VFR. It gives us VFR pilots a cost effective tool to help us free our hands for the occasional map work or drink of water on a long X-country.
Options are good.
I wonder?
These cheap AP's sound great but remember EFIS manufacturer's are not necessarily experienced at building autopilots. No disrespect to Dynon, but why would you risk your life in IMC with an unproven product when there are other manufacturer's out there with a better track record. Wasn't the D10A originally marketed as "not suitable for IFR"?
Many of the other EFIS vendors have OEM'ed specialist hardware for the job. Take AFS and Garmin - they both use Trutrak. Blue Mountains on the other hand had huge problems with their autopilots when they went their own way ? not to mention the units themselves were somewhat unreliable. Several vendors have tried a number of methods to control the autopilots before they came across something that worked well for them.
To me that says building a good autopilot is not the same as building an EFIS and I would personally rather not test a new product for them or fly behind it in IMC at this point. Sure you can cobble together a bunch of stuff from different vendors and call it redundant but how you would think you have time to troubleshoot all that in IFR I am not sure.
Last weekend I was in heavy IFR and despite our best intentions we did experience some ice and had to make an escape plan. When this sort of thing happens and you are in IMC you just cannot second guess the equipment.
If your mission is VFR then these autopilots would probably be excellent. They might ultimately prove to be a very good platform for IFR - but I just wouldn't want to be one of the first to find out.
For me they lack the failsafe features that a separate unit can provide which is not something I would save a few hundred dollars on. The Trutrak autopilot does continue to work when the equipment connected to it stops. What happens to your Skyview system if the new software you loaded to control your XM weather feed locks the EFIS up in the middle of an approach in IMC?
Personally I am getting sick of hearing about all the cool things the vendors are offering and watching everyone wait for something promised 18 months prior ? or struggling through the multiple software revisions. Its how these companies work but really it?s just not cool. Even Garmin handed out a pile of avionics a year or so ago for people to install in their aircraft and ?advertise for them?. Today they still haven?t delivered everything that they promised in terms of features.
Sooner or later we all need to decide if we want to go flying with a proven product or help a vendor test one which is not.
These cheap AP's sound great but remember EFIS manufacturer's are not necessarily experienced at building autopilots. No disrespect to Dynon, but why would you risk your life in IMC with an unproven product when there are other manufacturer's out there with a better track record. Wasn't the D10A originally marketed as "not suitable for IFR"?
Many of the other EFIS vendors have OEM'ed specialist hardware for the job. Take AFS and Garmin - they both use Trutrak. Blue Mountains on the other hand had huge problems with their autopilots when they went their own way ? not to mention the units themselves were somewhat unreliable. Several vendors have tried a number of methods to control the autopilots before they came across something that worked well for them.
To me that says building a good autopilot is not the same as building an EFIS and I would personally rather not test a new product for them or fly behind it in IMC at this point. Sure you can cobble together a bunch of stuff from different vendors and call it redundant but how you would think you have time to troubleshoot all that in IFR I am not sure.
Last weekend I was in heavy IFR and despite our best intentions we did experience some ice and had to make an escape plan. When this sort of thing happens and you are in IMC you just cannot second guess the equipment.
If your mission is VFR then these autopilots would probably be excellent. They might ultimately prove to be a very good platform for IFR - but I just wouldn't want to be one of the first to find out.
For me they lack the failsafe features that a separate unit can provide which is not something I would save a few hundred dollars on. The Trutrak autopilot does continue to work when the equipment connected to it stops. What happens to your Skyview system if the new software you loaded to control your XM weather feed locks the EFIS up in the middle of an approach in IMC?
Personally I am getting sick of hearing about all the cool things the vendors are offering and watching everyone wait for something promised 18 months prior ? or struggling through the multiple software revisions. Its how these companies work but really it?s just not cool. Even Garmin handed out a pile of avionics a year or so ago for people to install in their aircraft and ?advertise for them?. Today they still haven?t delivered everything that they promised in terms of features.
Sooner or later we all need to decide if we want to go flying with a proven product or help a vendor test one which is not.
Rainier Lamers
Well Known Member
Yes you have some good points but from an EFIS designers point of view, allow me to comment a little please.
Yes, you are quite right with one of the comments - experience needed. Nothing to do with system reliability though - it has all to do with learning how to fly an aircraft, any aircraft. You're a pilot ? Me to. Think I know how to fly an aircraft ? I thought I did. Until I started making an autopilot and I realized that I needed a much closer look at physics. Then there is the slight trouble that an RV-7 behaves a little different to a Challenger or a Piper Cub or a "place your favourite here"...
But that is fine, Like Dynon we stick to our guns and we tweak until its right. And then we tweak some more. Guess what is happening ? Right - experience is happening. You don't need "years" - things are happening much faster than they used to. Competition is intense. It's great fun...
Stand-alone APs do not have the processing power that a modern EFIS has. Stand-alone APs often do not even have an AHRS. They simply don't have the whole picture. The EFIS does. This means something.
Why do you think Trutrak is starting to make EFIS systems ? Should they not because they "lack experience" or is there something else going on ?
Things are changing and redundancy is NOT going to suffer.
Consider the following:
The new generation servos use multi-drop communcations interfaces (like the highly reliable CAN bus). This means they can be connected to several sources AT THE SAME TIME. So, you could have, say a dual panel EFIS system that also incudes a smaller third EFIS and all of them have a built in autopilot and all are connected to your servos. Each source knows exactly when to take over in a suitable scenario with a defined priority (master - slave1 - slave2) - each knows exactly what is happening on the communications line to the servos.
So, what do we have ?
I'm afraid the argument that having an old, simple (and expensive) stand-alone AP for "redundancy" is so blown out of the water it is not even funny.
The next generation "stand-alone" autopilots are full blown "mini" EFIS sytems such as Dynon's small D6 and our XTreme EFIS. And they integrate with their big brothers much nicer. This is INCREASED redundancy and INCREASED functionality at LESS cost.
Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
Yes, you are quite right with one of the comments - experience needed. Nothing to do with system reliability though - it has all to do with learning how to fly an aircraft, any aircraft. You're a pilot ? Me to. Think I know how to fly an aircraft ? I thought I did. Until I started making an autopilot and I realized that I needed a much closer look at physics. Then there is the slight trouble that an RV-7 behaves a little different to a Challenger or a Piper Cub or a "place your favourite here"...
But that is fine, Like Dynon we stick to our guns and we tweak until its right. And then we tweak some more. Guess what is happening ? Right - experience is happening. You don't need "years" - things are happening much faster than they used to. Competition is intense. It's great fun...
Stand-alone APs do not have the processing power that a modern EFIS has. Stand-alone APs often do not even have an AHRS. They simply don't have the whole picture. The EFIS does. This means something.
Why do you think Trutrak is starting to make EFIS systems ? Should they not because they "lack experience" or is there something else going on ?
Things are changing and redundancy is NOT going to suffer.
Consider the following:
The new generation servos use multi-drop communcations interfaces (like the highly reliable CAN bus). This means they can be connected to several sources AT THE SAME TIME. So, you could have, say a dual panel EFIS system that also incudes a smaller third EFIS and all of them have a built in autopilot and all are connected to your servos. Each source knows exactly when to take over in a suitable scenario with a defined priority (master - slave1 - slave2) - each knows exactly what is happening on the communications line to the servos.
So, what do we have ?
I'm afraid the argument that having an old, simple (and expensive) stand-alone AP for "redundancy" is so blown out of the water it is not even funny.
The next generation "stand-alone" autopilots are full blown "mini" EFIS sytems such as Dynon's small D6 and our XTreme EFIS. And they integrate with their big brothers much nicer. This is INCREASED redundancy and INCREASED functionality at LESS cost.
Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
Technical arguments aside, you seem to be confirming my argument that you wish your customers to pay you to "get the experience" that you need. Some will be happy with that, some will appreciate the lower cost for additional features, and some may even want to be on the cutting edge.
I never said any of the manufacturers would not do the right thing by customers to make it right, but not all of us want to be part of the process you describe. Let?s remember the question related to IFR flight ? where a proven system is obviously a consideration.
As a software engineer - my opinion is that the critical aspect of modern computing systems (and avionics) is the interface to the end user. Technology will come and go, but the interface and integration to other components within the system will not be replaced easily. The G1000 from Garmin is an excellent example. Many components, integrated seamlessly on one screen.
The question I would ask you as a manufacturer is why you would spend R&D dollars doing something that you could buy and integrate more cheaply and have a better solution now ? thus being in front of your competitors? You already have integration to a number of third party products on your website. IMO the real battle for an EFIS market is to have the best user interface/graphics/synthetic vision display and integrate with as much hardware as possible.
Look at Dynon?s latest system. Air data computer in the tail and an Ethernet port to the panel. Before too long we?ll all be buying something like this and plugging it into a couple of iPad?s or whatever. When that happens I hope you have the best software out there ? because that?s where it?s going. It is the only thing that cannot be turned into a commodity item. Programming physics might be good fun, but why do it if someone else has done it? In a pinch you could buy off the shelf hardware ? possibly from someone who has experience certifying the components.
Coming back to the original question ? show me flight hours and real world experience and performance. Then I might let you connect your electric boxes to my flight controls - if I think the operator interface is suitable and you can convince me that some code you wrote to display a map couldn?t result in the autopilot servos malfunctioning in IMC.
I never said any of the manufacturers would not do the right thing by customers to make it right, but not all of us want to be part of the process you describe. Let?s remember the question related to IFR flight ? where a proven system is obviously a consideration.
As a software engineer - my opinion is that the critical aspect of modern computing systems (and avionics) is the interface to the end user. Technology will come and go, but the interface and integration to other components within the system will not be replaced easily. The G1000 from Garmin is an excellent example. Many components, integrated seamlessly on one screen.
The question I would ask you as a manufacturer is why you would spend R&D dollars doing something that you could buy and integrate more cheaply and have a better solution now ? thus being in front of your competitors? You already have integration to a number of third party products on your website. IMO the real battle for an EFIS market is to have the best user interface/graphics/synthetic vision display and integrate with as much hardware as possible.
Look at Dynon?s latest system. Air data computer in the tail and an Ethernet port to the panel. Before too long we?ll all be buying something like this and plugging it into a couple of iPad?s or whatever. When that happens I hope you have the best software out there ? because that?s where it?s going. It is the only thing that cannot be turned into a commodity item. Programming physics might be good fun, but why do it if someone else has done it? In a pinch you could buy off the shelf hardware ? possibly from someone who has experience certifying the components.
Coming back to the original question ? show me flight hours and real world experience and performance. Then I might let you connect your electric boxes to my flight controls - if I think the operator interface is suitable and you can convince me that some code you wrote to display a map couldn?t result in the autopilot servos malfunctioning in IMC.
Rainier Lamers
Well Known Member
You are assuming that Dynon's (and our) autopilot is somehow still at the starting gates. I think if you look at both Dynon's and our autopilot a tad closer, you might find they are overtaking even the very best systems out there - and so they should. Knowing GRT, I'm pretty sure they will be no different.
Sure, no doubt a good argument. Only time fixes this for the "newbies".
Yes - but what are you trying to say ? How does that differ from any of the current much lower cost systems ?
Well, that is an easy answer. Yes and no. We (and others) do integrate with other equipment (SL30, 430W, TCAS, PCAS, FLARM, FLIR, VPX,...) the list is long.
But we still do our own stuff too. Why ? Because we think we can do better at less cost. In our case it's got nothing to do with making money. That concept does not even feature in our company. We do it because we can. We do it because it is a challenge. We do it because we are a bunch of engineers and this is what engineers do. We don't have a single "business man" in our company. We start with "Hey, let's make a Nav radio" - and then we do...
You may find some of the other small players are very similar indeed...
Yes, you are quite right - this is exactly where it's going and take just a small guess where we fit into the picture sometime in the near future...
BTW: Yes, it's going there but the iPAD - allthough very tempting is not quite right just yet. But it's certainly pointing in a direction...
No of course I can't. Nobody can. No, not even Garmin. That is why the redundancy issue came in to this thread ? A complex EFIS with it's hundreds of simulateously running tasks is not bullet proof (but considering what it is doing, it's pretty amazingly close).
I could talk about several tens of thousands of our instruments out there doing their thing, made over a period of 12 years and being continously redesigned to follow technology (does that not count for at least a little bit of experience ?), I could talk about 20 years before that making equipment that operates in the very toughest environments on the planet - 24/7 - but somehow, I think your mind is made up ?
If you believe certifcation has anything to do with reliability - I think you should have a closer look at the certified World.
Certification is about pushing paper and paving roads with little green dollar bills. I think you may find "uncertified" manufacturers being as aware of documents like DO-160 and what is in there as our "certified" friends.
Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
From a customer perspective, I would possibly be willing to go thru the learning curve of the supplier (to get their product up to par) if there was a clear advantage in long run for sticking to only one manufacturer, that is beside saving a few $$$. So far, there hasn't been such convincing arguments. Following new product that are coming out, specially EFIS, we are seeing many futures are being promised to be available in a year or so where as already exist and proven by other the competitor with little cost difference.
From an engineering perspective, my experience has shown trying to stick to fewer projects allows us to do a far greater job/product then otherwise.
However, the trend for the manufacturers seems to be trying to grab the market share by providing more and more product even if those product are not fully matured yet.
From an engineering perspective, my experience has shown trying to stick to fewer projects allows us to do a far greater job/product then otherwise.
However, the trend for the manufacturers seems to be trying to grab the market share by providing more and more product even if those product are not fully matured yet.
Sid Lambert
Well Known Member
I think Dynonsupport is trying to say you can use a small screen Dynon 10A to drive the GRT autopilot if the GRT system went belly up. This setup assumes you use GRT as the main system and the Dynon as the backup. The Dynon 10A costs less than the TT head unit.
Just that Garmin have made a very concerted and strategic effort to own all of the underlying technology and provide a single interface. Given that they are a large player they can do that. In order to compete others can either invest in R&D or integrate other technology, or a combination.
I think your customers want to see you make money and be successful (which I am sure you are and you do). If you can do that without a business man that?s great.
$?s keep the doors open ? which ever way you look at it. Every single vendor in the marketplace has pressure to deliver product and it is common to push the platform out the door before the software supports all the promised features, advertise products well before their release date or not have stock to keep up with supply. While that situation seems to be a necessity for the vendors it is not desirable for the customer.
I didn't really mean to imply anyone would use an iPad at the moment - just an example of some very cheap commodity hardware the likes of which will no doubt be used in future. Gone are the days of charging US$4k or more just for a 1500 nit screen.
I have no doubt your equipment is good, but your business philosophy is probably not compatible with the objectives I have for my aircraft. I love watching what you and other manufacturers are doing. It?s exciting and you are furthering the "state of the art" in leaps and bounds. However, man has put people on the moon with a lot less complexity than some of your products contain. I don't think that means anyone should stop working on improvements - but sometimes more for less is not necessarily better.
The vendor you and Dynon like to say you are making obsolete, recently repaired my Autopilot, upgraded the software, bench checked it and sent it back to me in Australia. The work was done for free, even though I?ve owned the equipment for years and been flying for two. By anyone?s estimation they didn?t need to do that. They even paid the first $40 of the return freight from their own pockets.
Can you offer service like that on less cost? Because I have to tell you I am a very happy customer of their?s ? whatever they charged me for the autopilot it delivers 100% of the features I bought and they stand behind it. That?s worth paying for.
No ? I am well aware that a certified product can fail just as easily as one which is not but there are benefits to using products where people have had extensive prior experience. Certification is often put down by the experimental community as being expensive and bureaucratic - which it can be. There are benefits though; process and manufacturing repeatability, traceability and defined test methodologies to name a few.
Practically these things translate to people with defective engine components being warned before the heads blow off in flight, faulty software or approach plates being withdrawn etc. Even the most hardened believer in Experimental would have to appreciate some benefits. Certification is not the only way to achieve that - but without it, the responsibility falls to the manufacturer. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn?t.
Unfortunately, sections of the EFIS market are quite immature at the moment. Competing on price and the promise of features to come is not uncommon in any industry. However, that seems to be the main substance of the marketing at this point. When I hear a vendor screaming about how cheap their product is compared to a competitor my first reaction is to ask why they are doing that. Experience tells me it is not always in the customer?s best interests - although sometimes it is.
