7

74Papa

Member
I'm looking ahead to avionics. Would you be so kind as to provide a discussion of your preference regarding EFIS systems?

As always, thanks..
 
Efis

Just installed a GRT Sport with 8.4 screen.
Nice product with intergrated auto pilot, verticle
Nav, Highway in the sky, Flight director. Ties in with a
Garmin GPS, and their EIS system. Simple all in
One nice product. Easy to use. Check out the demos on their
Web page or on YouTube.
 
Danny,

The post here in the archives related to your request will number in the thousands. There is more info here than any normal human can absorb.

Just watch out for bad information as there is plenty of that in here as well.

People tend to defend/promote whatever they have purchased and or are familiar with.

Pay particular attention to post from people that have real actual experience with multiple systems. You will find that this will weed out a ton of subjective opinions right off the bat.

Ironflight for instance has personal experience with GRT, Dynon's Legacy System and Garmin's G3X. (he has a bunch more experience but we are talking RV's here)

Stein from SteinAir fabricates custom panels for a living and has personal experience with em all.
 
74Papa said:
I'm looking ahead to avionics. Would you be so kind as to provide a discussion of your preference regarding EFIS systems?

As always, thanks..
Click to expand...

This is like asking "Which should I buy, Ford or Chevy?". :)

I think a much more productive way to research your question would be to download the user manuals from the websites of the EFIS manufacturers. Carefully read them and decide which ones offer the features you want/need. Without knowing your mission profile, comfort with advanced technology, panel real estate, and budget it is nearly impossible to offer good advice that applies to your situation.

Fortunately, the EFIS's from major brands will function as advertised and are well supported, the poor quality stuff was weeded out several years ago. Enjoy your research and rest assured you can find a system that is well-suited to your needs.
 
Last edited:
As Brain and Sam stated, most folks will strongly recommend the brand and model that they purchased.

Here are my recommendations:
  1. Define and understand your mission - almost all are great for VFR applications, some start to fall off when you look at IFR and redundant system requirements.
  2. Many have the same features, but not all have the same process. i.e. menu and knob structure is important, especially in single pilot IFR situations. You won't get this off the vendors web site.
  3. Find somebody that is flying with the EFIS you want to evaluate. Go flying with them and see what they are like. You'll find some things your will personally prefer over others. Since many of us are older, I know of one case where a decision was made because they could read the alt and speed without reading glasses on one products, where other products they couldn't.
  4. If it isn't shipping, it doesn't exist. Don't bet on future deliverables or enhancements. You'll just set yourself up for future disappointment. Vendors have been known to change directions.
  5. Spend the time now for evaluation, but don't buy until you are about 6-9 months before completion. Technology is in a constant state of change. Even then you are at risk of implementing last year's technology.
  6. Then make the best decision for you. It doesn't matter what everyone else has or uses. What meets your requirements and makes you happy is all that counts.
If you want to know why I made the choices I made for myself, I'm happy to share them. Just understand that what makes sense for me, may not fit your requirements.

bob
 
Brantel said:
The posts here in the archives related to your request will number in the thousands. There is more info here than any normal human can absorb.
Click to expand...

Spend a couple of weeks reading here and that will help a bunch. One thing that was important to me was the likelihood that the company I purchased from would be around in five years. It's not always the best (beta vs vhs) that survive.
 
On the issue of delaying your decision: I've been looking for several years, but unless a great 'pre-owned' deal comes along, I won't buy until I'm ready to start crimping & soldering. Things just move too fast, and the next significant price drop in electronics is always just around the corner.

One of my preferences is for the EFIS & autopilot to be able to communicate, but also be able to function independently if the other component dies. If that matters to you, it will probably narrow the field a lot.

To drift the thread a bit: I'd like to see an EFIS that can display CDI/glideslope from an old (much less expensive) analog output nav radio. Anyone know of one that will do that? This would seem to be a pretty simple software routine to write, using a couple of analog inputs to the EFIS.

Charlie
 
rv7charlie said:
To drift the thread a bit: I'd like to see an EFIS that can display CDI/glideslope from an old (much less expensive) analog output nav radio. Anyone know of one that will do that? This would seem to be a pretty simple software routine to write, using a couple of analog inputs to the EFIS.

Charlie
Click to expand...

Yes, the GRT will do this with analog inputs.
 
Careful. The GRT will display analog outputs for localizer and glide slope. But to use it to display VOR signals, you need a way to figure in an OBS setting. This usually is done via a digital (ARINC, or, for an SL30, RS232) link.
 
BobTurner said:
Careful. The GRT will display analog outputs for localizer and glide slope. But to use it to display VOR signals, you need a way to figure in an OBS setting. This usually is done via a digital (ARINC, or, for an SL30, RS232) link.
Click to expand...

Interesting that it will even do localizer & glideslope. I could have sworn that I asked GRT, & they said it wouldn't work using an old nav radio with analog output. Maybe I didn't form the question correctly. Will it display analog CDI info from an old enroute certified GPS? Will the Sport do both of the above? (The Sport is within my financial 'reach'.)

Charlie
 
Bob is right - and one his first word is the most important - CAREFUL!

This is not a simple "yes" or "no" answer; it also depends on which unit, which model of said unit, which radio, which GPS, etc..

Years ago a number of EFIS mfgr's would allow "some" analog inputs, anymore not so much. I guess my answer would be to consider NONE of the current EFISes as a good solution to putting something like a KX170, Narco MK12, King KX155, or any other plethora of analog inputs into for a good usable system....and not use that as one of your benchmarks. Lots of other info in the thread and I don't have a lot to add except everyone loves their own children the best! :)

Just my 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein
 
rv7charlie said:
To drift the thread a bit: I'd like to see an EFIS that can display CDI/glideslope from an old (much less expensive) analog output nav radio. Anyone know of one that will do that? This would seem to be a pretty simple software routine to write, using a couple of analog inputs to the EFIS.

Charlie
Click to expand...

MGL Odyssey, Voyager and the iEFIS systems all have 4x balanced 150mV inputs for this purpose. These are the signals normally used to drive the old style needle pointers.
Ordinary single ended analog inputs are not suitable as the signal is differential and only the voltage difference between the two wires matters - the actual voltage with respect to ground can be anything.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
Thanks Ranier; that's excellent news. What about talking to a stand-alone autopilot? In my case, a 2 axis Trutrak.

Charlie
 
Again, this is okay for localizer but for VOR you will need some way to communicate OBS info.
TruTrak (and Trio) autopilots are strictly digital instruments. They cannot use analog data. And they need (digital) gps data to perform most of their lateral functions.
 
While I don't have the expertise of Stein and Bob, I would like to say that I wired my GRT H1 WS screens to receive analog LOC and GS from a 430W. The indications work fine.

Bob is spot on about VOR. My system architecture will not display VOR. I would need to add a plug-in ARINC module on the GRT and make a few wiring changes between that and my 430W in order to provide the OBS signal from GRT to 430W.

Mine is not an old nav radio so Steins comment does not apply to my system.

I'm still vacilating on reconfiguring for VOR. I omited the ARINC in the beginning because I was feeling pinched for cash. If I were doing again, I'd probably buy it because the wiring is simpler. But now, the reconfig may be one of those "round tuits" I never do.
 
BobTurner said:
Again, this is okay for localizer but for VOR you will need some way to communicate OBS info.
TruTrak (and Trio) autopilots are strictly digital instruments. They cannot use analog data. And they need (digital) gps data to perform most of their lateral functions.
Click to expand...

Exception to this is the TT Sorcerer.
 
I didn't know about the Sorcerer.
I should have mentioned that the other TT and Trio autopilots don't need a fancy GPS. Many portable ones will drive them okay, if they have an RS232 output. Of course they're not legal for gps nav under IFR.
 
Dynon's HS34 does have analog inputs for analog VOR/LOC/GS signals and it also has an analog resolver output to drive the OBS setting.

The only problem is that it does not work in most cases. Dynon said in the past that they designed it to the published standards but that in reality many of the radio's out there do not output standard signals and as a result, they dropped support of the analog features of the HS34.
 
Tech Support

I am not flying yet and learning as we go but we did buy most our avionics recently. Our decision on what to buy and who from was originally based on a number of things as posted here (features, mission, price ect). Once we determined all those,our buying decision ultimately was made on one major factor... SUPPORT.
It was very important to realize as we purchased and are installing, we needed support and knowledge in order to execute the capabilities of the product. Many here are far more capable than I am, but in the end we all need some level of manual, schematic, software updates ect. In my opinion, if the product is not supported it quickly becomes a boat anchor. Dealers that support the product also deserve the loyalty and support from us, because they provide tech support that they most likely never invoice for. They provide a wealth of knowledge free of charge!!!
As in most businesses, it is all about building relationships and maintaining them!

Just my thoughts..
 
rv7charlie said:
Thanks Ranier; that's excellent news. What about talking to a stand-alone autopilot? In my case, a 2 axis Trutrak.

Charlie
Click to expand...

Yes we do interface to stand-alone autopilots and have done so for years.
We have had a difficult time getting trutrak vertical to work (horizontal is no problem) due to lack of documentation. It looks like the vertical is finally working now after some of our users climbed in with some assistance and experimentation (I do not own a trutrak system so have nothing to develop with myself).

Currently our systems drive autopilots via NMEA and ARINC (our systems include ARINC as standard).

This is over and above the built-in autopilot which drives servos directly (not the trutrak servos though).

One difference between the built in autopilot and external autopilot is that the external autopilot receives horizontal and vertical guidance information anytime such information is available on the EFIS (i.e. horizontal and/or vertical nav indications are "live"). AP engage and modes are handled on the AP head, not on the EFIS.
Simply put, the external AP receives whatever you see on the flight director.

Rainier
 
Just a quick update related to stand alone autopilots as some work has just now been completed related to vertical control (latest version to be released later today).
Here is the text from one of our customers e-mail. John is one of the many enthusiasts actively involved with aspects of MGL systems development all over the World. John has also been very involved with the development of advanced engine power calculation formulas now used on our systems.
He is using a high performance, very fast aircraft. He is using a Garmin GNS530 connected via ARINC to the MGL G2 Odyssey and a Trutrak DGII SVDG, also via ARINC to the MGL as well as NMEA from the MGL as well (The Trutrak uses track information from the NMEA).
Note on the below text that he is attempting an approach by starting well above the glide slope which of course is not the way you would normally do this. However, it's handled rather well.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

--------------
In a nutshell ? I think it is perfect. A few descriptions of what I did and observed:-

Cruising nice and stable at 5,000ft; EFIS A/P engaged and track(hdg) and alt stable.
Commanded descent from 5,000ft to 4,000ft by selecting 4,000ft on alt bug and descent commenced gently to the extent that my colleague flying beside me commented "you hardly know its started a descent". Preset descent rate was 500fpm; VS increased to ca. -ve500fpm to 630fpm and as we approached somewhere around 4,200ft, the VS reduced to ?ve 300fpm and progressively less as the aircraft settled beautifully onto 4,000ft with no overshoot. Perfect.

Commanded ascent from 4,000ft to 5,000ft by selecting 5,000ft on alt bug, and climb commenced gently and increased to what seemed to be pretty close to an average close to the preset +ve 1000fpm. There was a gentle reduction in VS as we approached the preselected altitude of 5,000ft; again with no overshoot. Perfect.

Selected an altitude of 4,000ft and heading change to port through 90 degrees. Perfectly executed.

Selected an altitude of 5,000 and heading change to starboard through 90 degrees. Perfect.

Performed a few hdg only commands; +/- 20 ? 30ft alt change during turns. Perfect.

At this point, I was close to a grass strip for which I had entered runway threshold data; positioned aircraft (using, now, of course the heading and alt bugs to put me in a reasonable position for a direct GLS approach to this strip; I activated the GLS and although I knew I was high and would not be intersecting from below the preset 3deg glide slope, the aircraft turned to intercept the runway heading BUT (although I was already descending at about 500fpm using the alt bug and as I was high) the VS shifted to about ?ve 1300fpm (despite setting in system being 500fpm for descent). I really don't have problem with how it all turned out? the increased ?ve VS meant that the EFIS drove me down onto the glide slope; laterally, I overshot a bit on the intercept to final, but that I am quite convinced that can be fixed by increasing the lateral activity setting on my Trutrak. The next thing I know, we are driving right down the line of green crosses and I have no doubt that if I didn't abandon the approach I would have hit the grassy threshold at 3deg glide slope and on runway heading.
 
What mission? What features?

The hardest thing about the OP's question is, How do I know what my mission is, in enough detail, to discriminate between the various features? How do I even know if a particular feature is something I want?

I think even if I were IFR rated, but had never flown with any glass cockpit, I would not know how to choose which features I might or might not want. I just don't have enough 'malice of forethought" to imagine what I COULD do if I had a particular feature.

Where to start?
 
scsmith said:
The hardest thing about the OP's question is, How do I know what my mission is, in enough detail, to discriminate between the various features? How do I even know if a particular feature is something I want?

I think even if I were IFR rated, but had never flown with any glass cockpit, I would not know how to choose which features I might or might not want. I just don't have enough 'malice of forethought" to imagine what I COULD do if I had a particular feature.

Where to start?
Click to expand...

I think there are two independent processes you have to evaluate.

The first is more of a system design perspective. What level of redundancy is appropriate for your mission. Then determine for every item in your system, what will be the result if that item failed. How would you continue if you were in IMC when the failure occurred? Obviously, you can get rather anal in the analysis, but take it to the level that makes sense.

The other is process management. This is the more difficult of the two, especially if you aren't already IFR rated. You may need to find a friend that you trust. When flying single pilot IFR, what is the sequence of button pushes, knob turns, etc that you have to make to flying the approach? Are they intuitive to you or is the workload overwhelming if you were a single pilot? This is also something that is darn near impossible to see at OSH. You really need to find somebody with the EFIS in a flying aircraft and go shoot some approaches. You typically won't find this in the manuals either.

You find that there are differences in the various vendors models that you will start to dislike or like. Be fore warned that these will become your preferences and may not make sense or be appropriate for somebody else.

Also be cautious as to what you read here and on other forums. It's a very natural trait to become evangelical preaching the merits of a particular vendors product to justify their own ego and purchasing decision. Just remember its just an opinion on the product that met their needs. If your needs aren't identical, then it may or may not be the best option for you.
 
Great Post

rleffler said:
I think there are two independent processes you have to evaluate.

The first is more of a system design perspective. What level of redundancy is appropriate for your mission. Then determine for every item in your system, what will be the result if that item failed. How would you continue if you were in IMC when the failure occurred? Obviously, you can get rather anal in the analysis, but take it to the level that makes sense.

The other is process management. This is the more difficult of the two, especially if you aren't already IFR rated. You may need to find a friend that you trust. When flying single pilot IFR, what is the sequence of button pushes, knob turns, etc that you have to make to flying the approach? Are they intuitive to you or is the workload overwhelming if you were a single pilot? This is also something that is darn near impossible to see at OSH. You really need to find somebody with the EFIS in a flying aircraft and go shoot some approaches. You typically won't find this in the manuals either.

You find that there are differences in the various vendors models that you will start to dislike or like. Be fore warned that these will become your preferences and may not make sense or be appropriate for somebody else.

Also be cautious as to what you read here and on other forums. It's a very natural trait to become evangelical preaching the merits of a particular vendors product to justify their own ego and purchasing decision. Just remember its just an opinion on the product that met their needs. If your needs aren't identical, then it may or may not be the best option for you.
Click to expand...

Bob, a really insightful post, which really gets to the issue.
My difficulty is in how to really figure out which EFIS system's Process Management would make more logical sense to me, and to therefore be easier for me to use.

It seems to me that all of the EFIS systems have plenty of information and features, I just worry that the process won't make sense to me.

Other than begging a ride with someone, is there any way to sort this out?

Thanks!
 
PCHunt said:
Bob, a really insightful post, which really gets to the issue.
My difficulty is in how to really figure out which EFIS system's Process Management would make more logical sense to me, and to therefore be easier for me to use.

It seems to me that all of the EFIS systems have plenty of information and features, I just worry that the process won't make sense to me.

Other than begging a ride with someone, is there any way to sort this out?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

There may be way, but I haven't found it yet.

When I was shopping for an EFIS (which I spent two years evaluating products due to I couldn't afford the purchase and I wasn't at a point in my build that I needed them) I went with two other folks that were also looking to make the EFIS decision to all the vendors at OSH. After each vendor, we would huddle and compare observations. It was interesting in what each of use keyed in upon.

For example, there was one product, in which the font and size of the altitude and speed indicators could be read without this person putting on his reading glasses. Face it, most of us old farts, need reading glasses. I didn't catch this particular nuance. Is it a discrimating factor that would drive anyone's EFIS decision? Probably only if you are only required to have reading glasses in the plane and not on while flying. I fell into the later group, so it didn't make a difference to me.

Several vendors EFIS can play back demo files. These look nice and show off the capabilities of the product. But it's hard to comprehend the user interface process from these demos.

Other vendors have shot videos in the cockpit while flying an approach. These are marginally better, but tend to be too focused on showing off the product rather than educational in nature in how to operate the EFIS.

There is one vendor that changed their product after the principle got their IFR rating. He personally struggled with the user interface and made products changes to solve the issues they encountered.

That same year at OSH, when one of the vendors that just release a new EFIS that everyone was really hot to purchase, I conducted an informal survey at Camp Scholler and whomever I ran into that I knew that was shopping for an EFIS. I simply asked, "Why did you decided to buy the model of EFIS you selected"? 90% of the folks responded that the made the decision because of that particular unit's graphic display. I then followed up with, so what's the sequence of buttons, menu choices, and knobs I need to touch during an IFR approach. 99% percent came back with, "I don't know".

Granted my survey wasn't conducted using a scientific method and that there are all kinds of issues with how I samplied folks. What it did tell me that the driving factor for EFIS purchases was probably more impulsive based upon a couple slick features than from an exhaustive comparion with how features satisfies your mission requirements.

So this is a very long answer, to simply state, no, I don't think there is a better way other than flying behind a product real time.

bob
 
My process...

My RV-7 is nearing the avionics stage (this year, hopefully!) and I think I know which EFIS system I'm going with. My process has been to attend Sun 'N Fun and Oshkosh as many times as possible and go to the vendors' booths to actually see the products and to ask questions. This has been invaluable as I would think of new questions each time as well as I've seen the products change - a lot - over the last few years. Then just this last year at Oshkosh I happen to run into the owner of an RV standing next to his airplane which had the system I'm strongly considering. He was so excited to show me how it all worked - he even got in the airplane and turned it on and explained it all in a way I could relate to! This included which and how many buttons to push for an approach, etc. That pretty much sealed the deal... except like others have said, I won't make the final decision until I absolutely have to just because things change fast.

It really does come down to what you are used to/comfortable with and a reputable company (for support down the road). Good luck!

By the way, my choice has gone through just about all the companies' products at one time or another!
 
Last edited:
PCHunt said:
Other than begging a ride with someone, is there any way to sort this out?
Click to expand...

This is obviously the best way - hands-on experience. Assuming you will not be able to track down rides to sample all the EFIS offerings, I would guess the manuals would all be found online in .pdf format. It's definitely not a replacement for actual use, but reading through the manual definitely gives you an idea if menus are deep or shallow - i.e. how much button pushing you'll be doing to accomplish various tasks - capabilities, limitations, etc.
 
If I had to do it over....

- I would have not purchased an EFIS on the assumption that autopilot (or other neat features) was going to be available "soon". After several years, still not available and its nobody's fault but my own for believing...
- I would have tested a real unit in a real operating environment, not a demo.
- I would have counted how many pushes, and how many buttons, and how many menu's it takes to do simple tasks.
- Touch screen is nice but not sure if in an actual environment it is perfected today. I would probably like old fashion buttons but not sure if that's offered anymore.
- I would put more weight on simplicity and ease of use. Menus within menus is a nightmare in a high stress environment
- I would put more weight on larger letters and symbols. My eyesight is not improving as I get older

Good luck on your search and hope that whatever you choose, you share with the folks here.
cj
 
F1R said:
When I go camping I don't take a TV. Nor do I take my lap top into a shower.

I have however had 4 out of 5 EFIS fail in flight. All in the last 3 years. The first one, a 10" all in one PFD, NAV, engine instruments and AP control simply got too wet from rain saturated cooling air while in IMC in a hold. The back up died from lack of sufficient cooling air.

The last 3( one has failed twice) were all software related. But they keep fixing them under warrantee..

IMHO IFR in IMC in an RV is not for me. Great for IFR practice and procedures but....

I have since rediscovered the joy of flight with Just TSO steam. It works just fine even in class B and C airspace.

I removed the AP too. I enjoy flying too much to let a computer do it for me.
Click to expand...

Looks like you found the correct gear to support your VFR mission. Lots of folks are VFR day only flyers.

Not all RVs leak water. For example, I'm not aware of any RV-10 that has a water problem behind the panel.

I hate using terms like light or heavy IFR. But in reality, most of us just use our ratings to enable flying VFR on top. But that again goes back to mission definition and the right gear to support that mission. We just have to acknowledge that there will be many variations on the theme and be supportive of people whose mission is different than ours.

I am curious as to understanding your failures a little better. I'm not looking to bash the vendor, but to understand what happened. What was the symptom that the software error created? It sounds like it made the EFIS totally useless? Do you just have a single EFIS screen? If there were two EFIS screens from the same vendor, would the software issue taken both screens out at the same time?

There are ways to mitigate these risks, but it may not make economical sense for a VFR day only aircraft. For example, since I do plan on flying IFR, I have four EFIS screens in the panel. Which for many may seem like extreme overkill. I have two primary screens directly in front of the pilot, another screen in front of the right seat to keep that person entertained. These are all from the same vendor. To mitigate a vendor specific problem taking all these screen out, I have another 3" EFIS screen in front of the pilot from a different vendor. I also have a standalone auto pilot that I can control independently from the EFIS, should the PFD fails.
 
Failure

It would be nice to have some info on glass panels in the big iron I bet failures happen more than we know in all glass set ups.
 
6 Gun said:
It would be nice to have some info on glass panels in the big iron I bet failures happen more than we know in all glass set ups.
Click to expand...

Actually they do and they don't. Airlines literally have entire departments of people dedicated to failure analysis...in a past life I worked in "Reliability and Planning" with fleets of planes like DC9's filled with steam stuff up to -400 whales, airbus's, etc.. with mostly solid state stuff in them. The regular reports out of these departments would make most statistical professors dizzy. The big iron analyzes stuff down to the smallest details when it comes to reliability - and that is almost every single system and rotable component on the plane.

Anyway, the regular reliability reports will highlight more details on failures, replacement, upgrades, etc.. The fact of the matter is that the new solid state stuff in the big iron is actually many times more reliable than the old analog stuff. That is a fact and though anectdotal contrarian evidence exists from various individuals based on their own personal experiences, the totality of fleet hours on glass vs. steam has been clearly worked out over the years as the big iron guys transitioned to these systems.

If you find a current reliability analyst that is willing to share details from their own fleet (which is highly unlikely) you'd be surprised...now failures from pilots resting their feed on the bottoms of the displays is a whole 'nother issue (and you sparky drivers know what I'm talking about)! :)

Just my 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein
 
The other consideration is that big iron avionics is designed and tested to completely different standards that the equipment we can afford. We can debate all day whether these standards achieve their aim, but as Stein alluded to, cost of failure is huge (in down time) for big iron so there is a significant incentive to put reliability at the top of the design requirements list. Its comparing apples and pears, so possibly not that instructive?

Pete
 
Not So Fast

6 Gun said:
It would be nice to have some info on glass panels in the big iron I bet failures happen more than we know in all glass set ups.
Click to expand...

I finished putting my RV-8 back together yesterday after completion of its annual. Hanging out at the airport tends to attract others. First my friend that works for a major commercial airframe manufacturer stopped by and we spent some time talking about automation in current generation airliners. Think about the A330 accident over the Atlantic. Several things come to mind - (1) your glass is only as reliable as the information it is being fed (so 2 issues, 1 of glass reliability and 1 of probe reliability); (2) cross reference instruments for failure mode (like in the old days when you had to know if your vacuum system wasn't working properly) and USE A RELIABLE SOURCE (maybe you need to check your speed against a hand held GPS to see if your glass is reporting the right speed); and (3) never have a cockpit set-up that relies on only one type of data / information feed (of course you're required to have a mag compass in your panel just for that reason, but pitot / static plus AHRS plus GPS in separate systems is the best way to go along with practicing "partial panel" from time-to-time).

The next friend that stopped by has thousands of hours in soviet type aircraft (yes, an interesting person to talk with) and he has the same preference as I do - steam gauges with a supplemental moving map.

I am thinking about supplementing my instruments with one of those portable iLevil AHRS units (due to the shortcomings of the mag compass), but I'm waiting for a "good" Android display SOFTWARE system. Thanks and fly safe.

P.S. To Stein's point - I was on a Embraer 175 about a month ago that turned back after 1 hour in flight. Once on the ground I had a chance to speak to the young lady captain. I introduced myself and we started talking airplanes. She said she had flown the type for about 2 years and never had any problems until this flight (pretty reliable). They had lost one of the engine generators (there are 3, 2 big ones and an APU) and, not knowing exactly how to handle "land as soon as practical" they turned back to our departure point in lieu of proceeding to destination! The solution to the problem...minimum equipment list...aircraft can be dispatched with one inop generator!
 
Last edited:
6 Gun said:
It would be nice to have some info on glass panels in the big iron I bet failures happen more than we know in all glass set ups.
Click to expand...

Good question. When I was flying glass cockpit airliners, (B737NG, B757/767 and MD88's) over a period of about 10 years I never had one display fail because of the screen. I did have a couple symbol generators fail, but different animal. I'm not saying they don't fail, just in my experience it was not an issue.
 
Glass

Thanks for the insight of glass from my fellow VAers after flying 32 years on steam gauges I know its time to go glass and its a huge choice may I chose wisely.
Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.