Advanced Autopilot

[dynonsupport]

We don't "control" any competing autopilots and currently don't have any plans to do so in any future software.

Our mapping software does output NMEA format data (and has for years) which standalone autopilots can use for navigation data, so they can fly the flight plan on SkyView. It's just that we don't turn the AP on/off on SkyView, nor change the AP modes.

 

[shenweas]

We don't "control" any competing autopilots and currently don't have any plans to do so in any future software.

Our mapping software does output NMEA format data (and has for years) which standalone autopilots can use for navigation data, so they can fly the flight plan on SkyView. It's just that we don't turn the AP on/off on SkyView, nor change the AP modes.

I think I stated my question wrong. 

Currently my (stand alone) autopilot is being fed directly from a Garmin approach approved GPS NAV COM by ARINC 429.  The reason that I did it that way during the initial wiring is because I wanted to have the A/P coupled approach capability.

Now that you have advanced A/P control I assume the Skyview will accept the flight plan (approach) from the GPS/NAV source. Is this correct?

If so and if the Skyview will output ARINC 429 to the autopilot then it should be able to fly a GPS or a NAV (ILS) coupled approach.

Currently the autopilot will only recieve (1) ARINC 429 input but there are seperate ARINC 429 outputs on the GPS and NAV sections of a GPS/NAV radio.

I am trying to make the A/P fly either approach

 

[airguy]

Skyview controls the servos through the data bus, not through the ARINC-429. I don't think it will work for you...

 

[bkthomps]

I don't have one inch of panel space left in my Europa;  it was always my understanding that the Skyview was a standalone unit and needed no further switchgear.

Then since the software portion is coming out first for the advanced AP, then you won't have to worry about a thing....that's the brilliant part of what they are doing- addressing the UI and capabilities first, then addressing the optional hardware interface (think AP74 on the older dynon stuff, it's optional)

For goodness sake Dynon, keep all functions within the box and switchgear in the unit.  It may be more difficult for you to do, but the "kiss" principle reigns!

Yeah, because they are...they are giving the consumer the option

NOT a bonus...plane isn't even in the air yet, the SV system is about 1 year old, and they're now talking about breaking the paradigm they established and around which many of us have designed our panels.

So you have zero experience flying IFR with the skyview, yet have complaints already? That's interesting...keep pounding those rivets while the rest of us provide input after completing an approach or going missed and flying to an alternate.

Had they said in their marketing brochures from day one that "future advanced autopilot features are planned, including a separate control panel", then we could have planned for that.  As it is, it will either be kludgy, awkward or expensive/time-consuming for me if I have to add this device *which their design paradigm did not include* up until now.

This is precisely why Dynon only releases enough information to stay competitive, we can't encourage them to release more features and integrations based on our requests/demands and then chastise them for empty promises and lack-luster products.


If you haven't flown a Skyview under IFR, or more specifically, in IMC in anything other than cruise (approach/departure) then please keep that in mind or preface your statements with "i really don't know what I am talking about, but I'd like to share my unsubstantiated opinion:"

A dedicated heading/altitude knob is extremely useful on a skyview- imagine the confusion when one of your "multi function" knobs is set to BARO that is usually set to ALT, some of us have done this and it's not cool to have the AP start seeking the new AP based on the accidental baro setting, people make mistakes, this one can be deadly.

Also, vertical speed- the ability to set this quickly is extremely important, your VS performance decreases as you climb to altitude, so you have to modify this- if I have a passenger in my 150hp RV-4 then I have to drop my VS to 500ft/min after about 3000ft to keep the CHT's down and the performance up, higher than 8000ft and I have to drop it to 300ft/min and notify ATC, otherwise i get in a <90kt IAS climb and it's no fun

I can go on and on for a list of reasons, but what they are releasing is extremely useful as an interim solution to the AP needs under IFR/IMC.

Intercepting a course (mode sequencing), annunciating minimums, tracking a GS/Glidepath, all very welcomed additions.

I fly IFR all the time behind my dual skyview system, I would like to say I have flown the most coupled approaches with a skyview system (~70 or so in the past 9 months), if I have not, I'd like to meet the guy who has me beat!

 

[swatson999]

NOT a bonus...plane isn't even in the air yet, the SV system is about 1 year old, and they're now talking about breaking the paradigm they established and around which many of us have designed our panels.

So you have zero experience flying IFR with the skyview, yet have complaints already? That's interesting...keep pounding those rivets while the rest of us provide input after completing an approach or going missed and flying to an alternate.

Had they said in their marketing brochures from day one that "future advanced autopilot features are planned, including a separate control panel", then we could have planned for that.  As it is, it will either be kludgy, awkward or expensive/time-consuming for me if I have to add this device *which their design paradigm did not include* up until now.

This is precisely why Dynon only releases enough information to stay competitive, we can't encourage them to release more features and integrations based on our requests/demands and then chastise them for empty promises and lack-luster products.


If you haven't flown a Skyview under IFR, or more specifically, in IMC in anything other than cruise (approach/departure) then please keep that in mind or preface your statements with "i really don't know what I am talking about, but I'd like to share my unsubstantiated opinion:"

A dedicated heading/altitude knob is extremely useful on a skyview- imagine the confusion when one of your "multi function" knobs is set to BARO that is usually set to ALT, some of us have done this and it's not cool to have the AP start seeking the new AP based on the accidental baro setting, people make mistakes, this one can be deadly.

Also, vertical speed- the ability to set this quickly is extremely important, your VS performance decreases as you climb to altitude, so you have to modify this- if I have a passenger in my 150hp RV-4 then I have to drop my VS to 500ft/min after about 3000ft to keep the CHT's down and the performance up, higher than 8000ft and I have to drop it to 300ft/min and notify ATC, otherwise i get in a <90kt IAS climb and it's no fun

I can go on and on for a list of reasons, but what they are releasing is extremely useful as an interim solution to the AP needs under IFR/IMC.

Intercepting a course (mode sequencing), annunciating minimums, tracking a GS/Glidepath, all very welcomed additions.

I fly IFR all the time behind my dual skyview system, I would like to say I have flown the most coupled approaches with a skyview system (~70 or so in the past 9 months), if I have not, I'd like to meet the guy who has me beat!

Thank you so much for your courteous response and pleasant demeanor.  I'll defer to your vastly superior knowledge now.

 

[swatson999]

BTW, how have you been flying "coupled approaches" without autopilot vertical guidance capability until 6.0?

 

[bkthomps]

Thank you so much for your courteous response and pleasant demeanor.  I'll defer to your vastly superior knowledge now.

apologies, I am a consultant by trade, I get hired to remind people they hired me to augment where they lack and often I find myself against someone who is arguing a point they have no basis to argue. It just felt like familiar territory, I'll work on tact- but at least I have your attention now.

BTW, how have you been flying "coupled approaches" without autopilot vertical guidance capability until 6.0?

Again, Sorry- but I have low tolerance for people to who give advice or criticism on internet forums and then admit they have zero experience. I don't know everything, in fact I know very little compared to most- but I do know quite about about flying IFR with the skyview because I've had plenty of seat time.

coupled lateral guidance with manual vertical, it's quite simple, you have to calculate your VSR for precision vs non precision approaches.

My method has been to use the VSR calculation on my G430W to the next waypoint, i establish my approach speed prior to the fix, this makes the VSR accurate, then I dial the VSR, plus or minus 100fpm into the autopilot, I do this all the way to the FAF, then let the AP track the lateral while I control pitch/power (airspeed/altitude)

What has been the most lacking, and is still outstanding- which I would criticize Dynon on, is the lack of ability to import flightplans from the 430/530 or 650/750, I am usually using the 430 as the certified signal source, which is correct, but I do not have the MAP overlay of my route, since the flight plans are usually in conflict- this can really affect situational awareness.

 

[swatson999]

No worries...as an engineer, I tend to get testy at times myself, so I understand.

I don't have zero experience in IFR, nor with Skyview (now that my plane is flying). At the time I requested a user interface that didn't *require* an additional box, I was still building. I note that I certainly wasn't alone in that request, either, as evidenced by both the comments at the time AND the comments since then in the other thread.

As for "coupled" approaches...yep, that's what I was referring to...I was taught, and having used other systems which would do it, that a "coupled approach" meant lateral AND vertical guidance, but that may just be a semantic difference (e.g., perhaps the proper term is "FULLY coupled approach").

So I think we're on the same page, for the most part...it's only our personal preferences which are at odds. That said, if Dyon wants to make an *optional* add-on box for knob-twisting and such, then that's fine with me and I may even, at some point, decide to put it in. My complaint was that I didn't feel it should be necessary (not "complaint" so much as request), and as a systems engineer specializing in software systems, I think I'm at least modestly qualified to speak about human-computer interfaces and systems design issues.

I totally agree with you on the flightplan import thing, though, but I understand there's no way to get Garmin to export it via ARINC or serial lines (as far as I know). They have crossfill, but I dunno if you could use that via some interface to get it to another brand of device or not.

MY biggest wish list item, after 6.0, will now be georeferenced charts, including plates.

 

[dynonsupport]

We do not output roll or pitch steering over ARINC 429, so you won't be able to fly a coupled ILS using SkyView if you have a external AP that doesn't support approaches itself.

 

[bkthomps]

No worries...as an engineer, I tend to get testy at times myself, so I understand.

(e.g., perhaps the proper term is "FULLY coupled approach").

Yes, that's the term.

I totally agree with you on the flightplan import thing, though, but I understand there's no way to get Garmin to export it via ARINC or serial lines (as far as I know).  They have crossfill, but I dunno if you could use that via some interface to get it to another brand of device or not.

Here's where I really add value to these discussions, I have a RV-7 with dual AFS 5500's as well- and it has FPL import over ARNIC, so it is a matter of Dynon considering this a priority and implementing it. The challenges I can see that they have are: is FPL bidirectional (pull from garmin is easier than push/pull to/from garmin, i am fine with pull only since the garmin is my certified source that i should use for course guidance, and I only want the dynon to slave/digest what the garmin has as the FPL so that my MFD can display it)

Honestly I am not sure why they aren't doing this, but I will add that it is a vital component to having highway in the sky (HITS) having any use at all. If Dynon's plan for HITS is simply to display squares for the assigned altitude bug vs relative and the assigned HSI course (either internal or external signal) then possibly this is not required, but still, it can really lead to poor situation awareness if the sequenced waypoints are not sync'd.

MY biggest wish list item, after 6.0, will now be georeferenced charts, including plates.

I almost agree with you on this one, but i will honestly say I think this is better achieved on a handheld. I want my PFD/MFD real estate and an approach plate to augment it- i would not want to give up terrain or a map view to gain a chart, and i've been extremely pleased in my tiny cockpit with an ipad mini and foreflight with the geo referenced charts license. It also provides me with some sort of redundancy as I can literally have a complete electrical failure/short/whatever in the plane and the ipad is self sufficient- i love that

The AFS system has geo-charts/plates and I will probably play with it a bit, but I cannot see myself using it in place of a map, now if i had 3 screens in a RV-10....then that's completely different. Dynon will probably include this to stay competitive, but they aren't marketing to the multi (more than 2) screen airframes like AFS is, well, if they are, it isn't apparent...Rob is selling 5", 8", 10" and 12" screens....he's really going after those larger planes and with that much real estate, plates are going to be required to stay competitive


my panel:

 

[60av8tor]

Here's where I really add value to these discussions, I have a RV-7 with dual AFS 5500's as well- and it has FPL import over ARNIC, so it is a matter of Dynon considering this a priority and implementing it. The challenges I can see that they have are: is FPL bidirectional (pull from garmin is easier than push/pull to/from garmin, i am fine with pull only since the garmin is my certified source that i should use for course guidance, and I only want the dynon to slave/digest what the garmin has as the FPL so that my MFD can display it)

Honestly I am not sure why they aren't doing this, but I will add that it is a vital component to having highway in the sky (HITS) having any use at all. If Dynon's plan for HITS is simply to display squares for the assigned altitude bug vs relative and the assigned HSI course (either internal or external signal) then possibly this is not required, but still, it can really lead to poor situation awareness if the sequenced waypoints are not sync'd.

This is my #1 for a follow-on update.  Horrible to be talking about more wants after the latest announcement of such a great update, but....

I agree that it will be almost required for HITS, unless the plan is for HITS to be soley based off the VFR SV system (which IMO is nuts).  I've said it in another thread and probably seem like a broken record, but if the HSI receives and sequences the data from the 430, it doesn't seem like a huge leap to display it on the map.  However, I'm sure it is or I would imagine it would have been offered by now.

I fly with a panel mounted iFly720 (have WingX on the iPad, but seldom use it in the cockpit - only planning), but would welcome charts and especially plates on the SV.  I find it easier to get info right off the sectional than the scrolling and button pushing from the map/info page.  Now that the integrated comm w/ tuning is available, I may not feel that way.  I would definitely like the charts on the MFD since in the terminal environment, on the approach segments, I have no need for the map page.

 

[swatson999]

Yeah, HITS should be using whatever the HSI is using to drive it...anything else could get WAY confusing WAY fast.

And FPL upload/download would be a great feature...if AFS is doing it, wonder how difficult it is? Maybe I'll dig around and see how it's implemented, if indeed it *is* implemented via ARINC-429 and not a serial line or other method.

I've heard good things about the iPad mini and various tools (WingX Pro was recommended to me, but I know they all have pretty nice features)...I'm just recovering from the economic shock of finishing the build and getting through flight test, though, so it might be a while before I get one.

Heck, I just received and now have to install my ADS-B box! LOL!

 

[swatson999]

I'm looking at pp. 4-13,14 of the GNS430W install manual, and I don't quite see how a complete flight plan could be transmitted via ARINC 429, unless it's via messages 303, 304, 305, 306 and 307 somehow. Everything else looks to be the usual point-to-point (i.e., leg) information...

 

[dynonsupport]

Flight Plan uploading to the Garmin GPS units is impossible. With the last software update they went and encrypted it to prevent anyone from doing it (mostly Aspen)

Displaying the flight plan on to infinity is totally different than displaying just the CDI deviation right now. Flight plan downloading is on the wish list. It's possible, but not the work of a few hours. The only reason we aren't doing it is that we have a limited number of hours and dollars available.

HITS is on the list too, and if you know us, you know we won't do it half-baked when it happens.

And I have to say, we handle multiple screen planes just fine:

 

[swatson999]

Here it is...p. 4-10 of Rev. F

If two 400W or 500W Series units are installed in an aircraft, the GPS RS-232 OUT 3 and GPS RS-232 IN 3 lines may be cross-connected to crossfill flight plans and user-defined waypoints from one 400W or 500W Series unit to the other.

(ETA: The programmer in me would start to think...hey...how does the 430 *know* it's connected to another 430, and can I spoof that with some other box, thus allowing for crossfill *from* the other box *to* the 430? Hmmmmmm.... LOL!)

 

[dynonsupport]

Yes, but find the spec that tells you what data goes over those wires and how to connect it to something besides another 430W

And then get them to give you the encryption key.

And then convince Garmin to not change that on you each software release...

Anyway, again, the issue is not the protocol difficulty, it's just the general time it takes to do any feature right. And as I say, you will never send a flight plan to the 430, but we do know how to listen to the one it already has via ARINC-429.

 

[swatson999]

Yeah, believe me, I know about proprietary data formats and all...not to mention, a certified box like a 430 *should* have some protections on what comes IN to it, so neither you nor anyone else will likely ever to be (easily) *send* data to it, as it would violate the integrity of the data in that box.

What's coming *out*, though, is a different matter...shouldn't be too hard to parse that stream, but yeah, I hear you on the time and effort involved (vs. how high it is on the priority list), especially if it means you have to work with Garmin on some NDA or other contractual sort of arrangement in order to use it (i.e., they won't release the spec and/or it's encoded on its way out, unless you have an agreement with them).

They're not dumb...they do know how to protect their intellectual property and their business model.

Still...AFS did it, apparently. Now, *get with it*, Dynon! (Just kidding...keep up the good work, and I'm sure we'll see that feature sometime in the future).

 

[bkthomps]

if you want to be optimistic, I think Dynon played ball with AFS and the other vendors by making the transponder interface available, perhaps AFS can return favor with some features? who knows

it's not one of those deal breaker decision making features (I bet HITS is a bigger deal breaker for potential dynon customers) but I'd still rather see a useful feature such as FPL transfer, HITS just is just a toy/bell/whistle

And I have to say, we handle multiple screen planes just fine:

I never said Dynon wasn't setup to handle multiple screens, AFS has the edge by being able to display the charts/plates/sectionals on the center/smaller screen is all. I'm sure Dynon has a plan for that market. Garmin has a unique offering since the G3X is narrow enough to place 3 screens in RV6/7/9 or Glasair/Lancair and other similar sized aircraft

 

[Tomyfly]

One short question: Can I use advanced AP funktion with the Garmin 696 ?

 

[dynonsupport]

You can use some of the functions, but since the 696 is not an approach certified GPS, you cannot fly approaches with it. It does not output vertical information for approaches so there is nothing for the AP to follow.