PAT Avionics Debuts Affordable HUD For Experimental Market

AggieMike88

AggieMike88

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
20,805
Location
Denton, TX
Display Name
Display name:
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
Now this is something interesting. I wonder if it would ever make it to the certified aircraft and retain it's affordability?

http://www.airventure.org/news/2012/120725_pat-avionics-debuts-affordable-hud.html

PAT_Avio1mb_300.jpg


PAT Avionics from Milan/Italy is debuting its G-HULP HUD at AirVenture this week—which it calls affordable and within reach of the average low-time pilot who is not able to spend the amount that you would have to put down for the average family sedan.

...

Price for the stand-alone unit is $5,999, while the G-HULP for Dynon SkyView is priced at $4,999. All orders placed here this week or online receive a 10 percent discount through the end of the month, with free delivery included​
 
Last edited:
Experimental leading the way. Eat your heart out certified market.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Experimental leading the way. Eat your heart out certified market.
Click to expand...
Well, isn't that how it's supposed to work? New things are experimental, then make their way into certified aircraft after the technology is proven.

Of course it is a bit odd that it should take 40 years and millions of dollars to replace a quill with a ball point pen... :dunno: Well, the first half of the formula works at least.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Experimental leading the way. Eat your heart out certified market.
Click to expand...

You assume it'll make it to the certified market.

Companies like Dynon have proven they never need to ever go through Certification and still have a viable business.

Sadly, they're indirectly doing us Certified aircraft folk a disservice, since that lowers competition in the Certified markets significantly.

The issue basically is that something (be it an aircraft, avionics, or whatever) can be Experimental forever. You can build an aircraft, never change it once in 30 years of flying, and it's still an experiment. Same with components.

"Experimental" seems like the wrong word for that.
 
denverpilot said:
You assume it'll make it to the certified market.

Companies like Dynon have proven they never need to ever go through Certification and still have a viable business.

Sadly, they're indirectly doing us Certified aircraft folk a disservice, since that lowers competition in the Certified markets significantly.

The issue basically is that something (be it an aircraft, avionics, or whatever) can be Experimental forever. You can build an aircraft, never change it once in 30 years of flying, and it's still an experiment. Same with components.

"Experimental" seems like the wrong word for that.
Click to expand...

I'm not an experimental guy but IIRC some "experimental" manufacturers pre-plan for certification down the road... or not.
 
Just found this baby out: http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/D1_intro.html

Looks like Xmas in September for me. The days of flying behind unreliable wonky certified gyros are gone! I've been waiting for this product for a year now. Go experimental go! :D

...it will be used for backup and general SA enhancement of course.... ;D
 
Yet another example of how regulation and tort hurt safety.

The FAA might even understand that it makes sense to allow easier certification for stuff like this Dynon device, or AoA indicators, or what have you, but then you have the damn lawyers.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Now this is something interesting. I wonder if it would ever make it to the certified aircraft and retain it's affordability?

http://www.airventure.org/news/2012/120725_pat-avionics-debuts-affordable-hud.html

PAT_Avio1mb_300.jpg


PAT Avionics from Milan/Italy is debuting its G-HULP HUD at AirVenture this week—which it calls affordable and within reach of the average low-time pilot who is not able to spend the amount that you would have to put down for the average family sedan.

...

Price for the stand-alone unit is $5,999, while the G-HULP for Dynon SkyView is priced at $4,999. All orders placed here this week or online receive a 10 percent discount through the end of the month, with free delivery included​
Click to expand...

No SVT, meh, it's all old tech, last gen stuff. I wouldn't buy it. Now if it were a FLIR HUD unit I'd be extremely interested and would figure out how to put it in my plane as supplemental equipment.
 
onwards said:
Yet another example of how regulation and tort hurt safety.

The FAA might even understand that it makes sense to allow easier certification for stuff like this Dynon device, or AoA indicators, or what have you, but then you have the damn lawyers.
Click to expand...

Thing is that there is plenty of stuff that comes onto the experimental market that is crap and unreliable as well. With experimental we know the risk and accept it. Certified aircraft can be put into commercial service though where the FAA is responsible to the general traveling public's safety.

There have been words spoken with regards to Owner Maint Experimental category which will allow certified airplanes to be taken out of commercial service applicability. This has been a long road and LSA was a bit of a proving ground for seeing how industry would do regulating themselves with minimal intervention at any level. It's not done yet either and one of the sticky points is the ExAB communities safety record which the FAA called them out on last year.
 
While neat looking I just don't find the need for it in VFR flight. It takes me a split second to glance down plus I wouldn't want something obstructing the FOV on my panel. We had HUD in the Army and I rarely used it. It's not like you can look through the symbology into the distance and comprehend what it's telling you. You have to focus in on the symbology, comprehend it, and then refocus into the distance. It's like trying to fly VMC and IMC at the same time. While the application in the fighter community makes sense I can't see spending 5 grand on it for a civilian app.
 
Let's imagine a miracle occurs and this HUD (with SVT) can be approved for a certified aircraft.

What changes, if any, would be made to the instrument flight experience requirements?

Could an instrument-rated pilot spend less time maintaining (or regaining) proficiency?
 
Bob Noel said:
Let's imagine a miracle occurs and this HUD (with SVT) can be approved for a certified aircraft.

What changes, if any, would be made to the instrument flight experience requirements?

Could an instrument-rated pilot spend less time maintaining (or regaining) proficiency?
Click to expand...
Eh? Why would moving the instrument display up 12" make a difference? There's presumably nothing to see beyond the HUD in IMC anyhow.

About the only thing it helps with is transition from IMC to VMC and vice versa.
 
Bob Noel said:
Let's imagine a miracle occurs and this HUD (with SVT) can be approved for a certified aircraft.

What changes, if any, would be made to the instrument flight experience requirements?

Could an instrument-rated pilot spend less time maintaining (or regaining) proficiency?
Click to expand...

I don't think it would affect it at all. The HUD combines most of what a typical EFIS has anyway. Just go out and buy an EFIS with synthetic for the same price. If you're in the clouds or under hood does it make a difference if you're looking straight ahead or 8 inches lower at an EFIS?
 
Bob Noel said:
Let's imagine a miracle occurs and this HUD (with SVT) can be approved for a certified aircraft.

What changes, if any, would be made to the instrument flight experience requirements?

Could an instrument-rated pilot spend less time maintaining (or regaining) proficiency?
Click to expand...

SVT not HUD is what changes situational awareness from interpreting multiple points of raw data and determining ones vector then transposing it to a 2 dimensional charting environment to one of taking a glance at a 3D representation of your surroundings with you vector line through them already displayed. SVT = eVMC where as HUD just moves your data field to the windshield. HUD was developed so fighter pilots didn't have to lose sight of their enemy while being able to see the data on their energy and weapons state. Great for that purpose and nice for flying out the bottom of an approach so you don't have to look up and down while waiting to break out, but outside of that pretty useless for GA.

I suspect we will see quite a few of these sold to the RV community and few others.
 
Henning said:
SVT not HUD is what changes situational awareness from interpreting multiple points of raw data and determining ones vector then transposing it to a 2 dimensional charting environment to one of taking a glance at a 3D representation of your surroundings with you vector line through them already displayed. SVT = eVMC where as HUD just moves your data field to the windshield. HUD was developed so fighter pilots didn't have to lose sight of their enemy while being able to see the data on their energy and weapons state. Great for that purpose and nice for flying out the bottom of an approach so you don't have to look up and down while waiting to break out, but outside of that pretty useless for GA.

I suspect we will see quite a few of these sold to the RV community and few others.
Click to expand...

yeah, I know what SVT is as well as the HUD. :rolleyes:

but let's imagine your favorite technology was used...

What changes, if any, would be made to the instrument flight experience requirements?

Could an instrument-rated pilot spend less time maintaining (or regaining) proficiency?

In other words, why would I spend the money to install it in my airplane?

If it doesn't lower my currency requirement or create additional capability (I can already fly IMC), why would I spend the $$$$?
 
Bob Noel said:
yeah, I know what SVT is as well as the HUD. :rolleyes:

but let's imagine your favorite technology was used...

What changes, if any, would be made to the instrument flight experience requirements?

Could an instrument-rated pilot spend less time maintaining (or regaining) proficiency?

In other words, why would I spend the money to install it in my airplane?

If it doesn't lower my currency requirement or create additional capability (I can already fly IMC), why would I spend the $$$$?
Click to expand...

Yes, by an order of magnitude. A 12 year old with computer gaming experience can get the plane to the end of the runway. What changes is learning to use the modern equipment like the 430/530 radios which the new GTN series radios completely changed and made much simpler as well.

That's why I spent more money on my panel than my plane.
 
Last edited:
If I had an RV-8 with a warbird paint job I'd buy it for the "cool effect." Outside of that it would have no practical purpose in my aircraft. :wink2:
 
Could an instrument-rated pilot spend less time maintaining (or regaining) proficiency?

Henning said:
Yes, by an order of magnitude. A 12 year old with computer gaming experience can get the plane to the end of the runway. What changes is learning to use the modern equipment like the 430/530 radios which the new GTN series radios completely changed and made much simpler as well.

That's why I spent more money on my panel than my plane.
Click to expand...


Yet the currency/experience requirements are the same whether the aircraft has all that extra crap or not.

Are you going to propose a change?
 
Bob Noel said:
Could an instrument-rated pilot spend less time maintaining (or regaining) proficiency?




Yet the currency/experience requirements are the same whether the aircraft has all that extra crap or not.

Are you going to propose a change?
Click to expand...

I don't think so, currency requirements are low, much lower than proficiency requirements with an interpretive instrument panel if you want to be truly proficient. I think the same standards would hold applicable with SVT as well. As for experience for training, I think it will still require 40 hrs, it will just reassign those hours around where some of them can be spent on the ground hooked to a GPU learning the equipment. No need to burn gas to learn all the buttonology. IFR flight with SVT is not simpler in the overall as the equipment generally is more complex. If one already flies with the equipment VFR you have a head start, but you can short cut a lot of functions and features in a VFR environment that you need to know to use for IFR. There is also more to an instrument rating than just learning to control the plane on instruments and the equipment, quite a bit is learning to work in the IFR system environment as well. As for the 50 hours XC requirement, I don't see that going away either because that is just about gaining the basic flying proficiency required regardless the equipment one uses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top