How to plan the future panel?

[Andrew Gideon]

I've been tasked by my flying club <http://flyingclub.org/> with a job I've
been trying to do informally anyway: design our "panel of the future", and
draw up a plan for getting from our current state to there.

The mandate is pretty wide, though I get the feeling that an electric AI is
more likely to be approved than a wet bar.

We've four aircraft (all Cessnas: two 172s, a 182Q and an R182 (RG)), and
one of the policies we want to continue is to have equivalent panels in all
aircraft. For example, we've Garmin 430s and Strikefinders in all aircraft
today, so someone hopping into one or another will know how to use these.

Of course, we all know that no plan survives contact with the future (to
misquote). But having a plan means that we can be coherent about changing
the plan.

So...what's a good way to go about this?

Obviously, I can start with my wishlist and add to that the collected
wishlists of all the other members. But how does one prioritize? I'm
thinking that enhancements should be ordered by safety and then increased
utility. But even that begs the question.

For example, how important is a backup electric AI given that we've standby
vacuum systems (off of manifold pressure)? How does a backup AI compare
to, for example, Cockpit WX, in terms of safety? What is the "cost" of
having Cockpit WX on a separate device (ie. more learning) instead of
displaying directly on the 430s?

[FWIW, over 75% of us are IFR rated though I've no idea how many fly how
"hard" IFR.]

How do other clubs, partnerships, or individual owners approach this type of
planning?

Thanks...

Andrew

[Dude]

Can't help you with the club issues, but I would say that cockpit weather on
a 430 is a pretty good thing for IFR flyers.

If you want to stay Garmin, you might like the GTX330 for the traffic, and
the new weather box.

I display both on the 430 for now, and then plan on adding the next
generation Garmin box in a few years.

I might skip the weather for the 172's though.




"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> I've been tasked by my flying club <http://flyingclub.org/> with a job
> I've
> been trying to do informally anyway: design our "panel of the future", and
> draw up a plan for getting from our current state to there.
>
> The mandate is pretty wide, though I get the feeling that an electric AI
> is
> more likely to be approved than a wet bar.
>
> We've four aircraft (all Cessnas: two 172s, a 182Q and an R182 (RG)), and
> one of the policies we want to continue is to have equivalent panels in
> all
> aircraft. For example, we've Garmin 430s and Strikefinders in all
> aircraft
> today, so someone hopping into one or another will know how to use these.
>
> Of course, we all know that no plan survives contact with the future (to
> misquote). But having a plan means that we can be coherent about changing
> the plan.
>
> So...what's a good way to go about this?
>
> Obviously, I can start with my wishlist and add to that the collected
> wishlists of all the other members. But how does one prioritize? I'm
> thinking that enhancements should be ordered by safety and then increased
> utility. But even that begs the question.
>
> For example, how important is a backup electric AI given that we've
> standby
> vacuum systems (off of manifold pressure)? How does a backup AI compare
> to, for example, Cockpit WX, in terms of safety? What is the "cost" of
> having Cockpit WX on a separate device (ie. more learning) instead of
> displaying directly on the 430s?
>
> [FWIW, over 75% of us are IFR rated though I've no idea how many fly how
> "hard" IFR.]
>
> How do other clubs, partnerships, or individual owners approach this type
> of
> planning?
>
> Thanks...
>
> Andrew
>

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...

> For example, how important is a backup electric AI given that we've
standby
> vacuum systems (off of manifold pressure)? How does a backup AI compare
> to, for example, Cockpit WX, in terms of safety?

Equipment intended for emergency use often has no utility in day-to-day ops,
but may save your hide in a bad space. Think about one of the new 406Mhz
ELTs, for instance. If you never crash where no one sees you, it won't do
you any good. But do the deed out in the sticks and it may mean searchers
find survivors instead of bodies.

I have the precise flight standby system in my 172 and I'm comfortable with
that, but an electric AI is better, so long as you mount it in a reasonable
line of sight. IIRC Mel Carnahan's plane went down with a suspected blown
vacuum pump and a functioning electric AI on the far side of the panel. The
standby vac supports both AI and DG without requiring you to change your
scan, but they have idiosyncracies that an electric AI doesn't.

Personally, I'd be looking at the big 3: weather, traffic, and terrain.
These benefit you every time you fly, VFR or IFR. Flying in the Northeast
I'd sure like to have TIS, and if you do operate IFR a lot, terrain
avoidance gear addresses one of the single most common IFR (and MVFR)
accident modalities. You've already got sferics so you're not blind, but
datalink Wx would fill the picture in much more clearly.

Also, do you have autopilots already? In terms of practical IFR, that's the
first thing I'd add.

Planning? Stockpile a lot of money. That's the only thing you can count on
not changing.

-cwk.

[Doug]

My ideal minimal panel would be the traditional guages with the
addition of an electric AI for backup. I would not have a backup vacuum
system. But I would want batteries in the AI. This way I have two AI's
each running off it's own power source.
I would have two VOR/GS, an IFR GPS and an all electric autopilot
coupled to the VOR/GS with just altitude hold. I would have a handheld
GPS and a handheld radio, with rechargable batteries plugable into the
aircraft power supply. I would also have some battery operated cockpit
lighting, permanently installed.

Not included would be DME, ADF, or Marker Beacons, nor an HSI (with an
autopilot and an IFR GPS, you don't really gain much with an HSI).

If I went with onboard weather, it would be one of those systems that
downloads from the satellite radio the graphic weather to a display.

Don't forget that money issues aside, all this stuff breaks and it
takes the airplane down while it's being fixed. So keep it as simple as
possible, though the above system is not that simple.

I have traditional gyros in my plane, an all electric autopilot
coupled, a VOR/GS and an IFR GPS. As it is, I usually have to repair at
least one item every year. My IFR GPS just got back from King, works
great now! But my autopilot still isn't working. Autopilots are great,
but are known for unreliability and frequent expensive repair. There is
a good argument for just a wing leveler. Safetywise, in IFR that is all
you need. All the coupling is just convenience. But it needs to be all
electic.

[Steve]

Andrew,
Depending on how serious the IMC is that the planes will be flying in, a
rate based a/p would probably suffice over an electric AI. I happen to have
both, but only because I purchased the RC Allen electric AI first. If the
A/P is cost prohibitive, then I would look at an electric AI. I also have
XM weather via NavAirWx, which is very helpfull at times.

As far as your safety question goes........for typical flights I would say
that cockpit weather has a safety advantage over an electric AI. But if the
vacuum pump ever failed, then the reverse is true (LOL). The trick is
determining which flight the pump will fail on.

Thanks,
Steve



"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> I've been tasked by my flying club <http://flyingclub.org/> with a job
> I've
> been trying to do informally anyway: design our "panel of the future", and
> draw up a plan for getting from our current state to there.
>
> The mandate is pretty wide, though I get the feeling that an electric AI
> is
> more likely to be approved than a wet bar.
>
> We've four aircraft (all Cessnas: two 172s, a 182Q and an R182 (RG)), and
> one of the policies we want to continue is to have equivalent panels in
> all
> aircraft. For example, we've Garmin 430s and Strikefinders in all
> aircraft
> today, so someone hopping into one or another will know how to use these.
>
> Of course, we all know that no plan survives contact with the future (to
> misquote). But having a plan means that we can be coherent about changing
> the plan.
>
> So...what's a good way to go about this?
>
> Obviously, I can start with my wishlist and add to that the collected
> wishlists of all the other members. But how does one prioritize? I'm
> thinking that enhancements should be ordered by safety and then increased
> utility. But even that begs the question.
>
> For example, how important is a backup electric AI given that we've
> standby
> vacuum systems (off of manifold pressure)? How does a backup AI compare
> to, for example, Cockpit WX, in terms of safety? What is the "cost" of
> having Cockpit WX on a separate device (ie. more learning) instead of
> displaying directly on the 430s?
>
> [FWIW, over 75% of us are IFR rated though I've no idea how many fly how
> "hard" IFR.]
>
> How do other clubs, partnerships, or individual owners approach this type
> of
> planning?
>
> Thanks...
>
> Andrew
>

[Dude]

I think those ELT's are going to come down in price as they start becoming
OEM for new planes. Of course, the money saved won't be worth it if you
need one.



"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
>
>> For example, how important is a backup electric AI given that we've
> standby
>> vacuum systems (off of manifold pressure)? How does a backup AI compare
>> to, for example, Cockpit WX, in terms of safety?
>
> Equipment intended for emergency use often has no utility in day-to-day
> ops,
> but may save your hide in a bad space. Think about one of the new 406Mhz
> ELTs, for instance. If you never crash where no one sees you, it won't do
> you any good. But do the deed out in the sticks and it may mean searchers
> find survivors instead of bodies.
>
> I have the precise flight standby system in my 172 and I'm comfortable
> with
> that, but an electric AI is better, so long as you mount it in a
> reasonable
> line of sight. IIRC Mel Carnahan's plane went down with a suspected blown
> vacuum pump and a functioning electric AI on the far side of the panel.
> The
> standby vac supports both AI and DG without requiring you to change your
> scan, but they have idiosyncracies that an electric AI doesn't.
>
> Personally, I'd be looking at the big 3: weather, traffic, and terrain.
> These benefit you every time you fly, VFR or IFR. Flying in the Northeast
> I'd sure like to have TIS, and if you do operate IFR a lot, terrain
> avoidance gear addresses one of the single most common IFR (and MVFR)
> accident modalities. You've already got sferics so you're not blind, but
> datalink Wx would fill the picture in much more clearly.
>
> Also, do you have autopilots already? In terms of practical IFR, that's
> the
> first thing I'd add.
>
> Planning? Stockpile a lot of money. That's the only thing you can count on
> not changing.
>
> -cwk.
>
>
>

[Steven Barnes]

How much weight does a wing leveler a/p add to a plane? A two axis a/p?
I rented a Warrior from a nearby town a long time ago. Can't remember the
numbers, but it had less useful load than the non-a/p Warrior on the line.


"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew,
> Depending on how serious the IMC is that the planes will be flying in, a
> rate based a/p would probably suffice over an electric AI. I happen to
have
> both, but only because I purchased the RC Allen electric AI first. If
the
> A/P is cost prohibitive, then I would look at an electric AI. I also have
> XM weather via NavAirWx, which is very helpfull at times.
>
> As far as your safety question goes........for typical flights I would say
> that cockpit weather has a safety advantage over an electric AI. But if
the
> vacuum pump ever failed, then the reverse is true (LOL). The trick is
> determining which flight the pump will fail on.
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
>
>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
> > I've been tasked by my flying club <http://flyingclub.org/> with a job
> > I've
> > been trying to do informally anyway: design our "panel of the future",
and
> > draw up a plan for getting from our current state to there.
> >
> > The mandate is pretty wide, though I get the feeling that an electric AI
> > is
> > more likely to be approved than a wet bar.
> >
> > We've four aircraft (all Cessnas: two 172s, a 182Q and an R182 (RG)),
and
> > one of the policies we want to continue is to have equivalent panels in
> > all
> > aircraft. For example, we've Garmin 430s and Strikefinders in all
> > aircraft
> > today, so someone hopping into one or another will know how to use
these.
> >
> > Of course, we all know that no plan survives contact with the future (to
> > misquote). But having a plan means that we can be coherent about
changing
> > the plan.
> >
> > So...what's a good way to go about this?
> >
> > Obviously, I can start with my wishlist and add to that the collected
> > wishlists of all the other members. But how does one prioritize? I'm
> > thinking that enhancements should be ordered by safety and then
increased
> > utility. But even that begs the question.
> >
> > For example, how important is a backup electric AI given that we've
> > standby
> > vacuum systems (off of manifold pressure)? How does a backup AI compare
> > to, for example, Cockpit WX, in terms of safety? What is the "cost" of
> > having Cockpit WX on a separate device (ie. more learning) instead of
> > displaying directly on the 430s?
> >
> > [FWIW, over 75% of us are IFR rated though I've no idea how many fly how
> > "hard" IFR.]
> >
> > How do other clubs, partnerships, or individual owners approach this
type
> > of
> > planning?
> >
> > Thanks...
> >
> > Andrew
> >
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Steve wrote:

> Depending on how serious the IMC is that the planes will be flying in, a
> rate based a/p would probably suffice over an electric AI.

Why is "rate based" significant here? Is it just because that ties the AP
into the TC?

And are you assuming that the AP has altitude hold? Otherwise, I don't see
a "replacement" for the lost pitch information in the case of a failed AI.

- Andrew

[Doug]

Rate based is desirable because it is all electric. In most GA planes,
the AI and DG are vacuum. So, loose your electrical and you still have
the AI and DG. Loose your vacuum, and you still have the TC AND the
autopilot.

So the issue is not rate based, the issue is all-electric. It's just
that rate based implies all electric and attitude based implies it
needs BOTH electric and vacuum.