Many thanks for your input, Jake. That is really good.
Terrain doesn’t change but obstacles do.
True, but in the context of reducing database costs (which are a significant factor with modern avionics) updating say once every year or two is a lot cheaper than updating on the AIRAC cycle.
Even on simple GPS databases (KLN94 type of thing) you are looking at USD 400 per year (13 cycles) and most pilots I know “stretch” them out during the winter. If not flying Eurocontrol IFR there is simply no need for a current database. Honeywell/King unfortunately are ahead of this practice and impose an overall time frame of 18 months for the 13 cycles. They will extend it by a cycle or so if you ask them nicely…
I need to take a closer look at the IFD550. The plan is to put in two of the 540 boxes, sometime next year.
I don’t understand the urge to scrimp on database costs. If you fly IFR within the system you need a current database. If you fly MVFR can you trust your obstacle database if is not up to date – hundreds of new obstacles are added every month.
If you fly IFR within the system you need a current database
Indeed; I wrote:
If not flying Eurocontrol IFR there is simply no need for a current database
I guess one could add “if flying on the UK IMC Rating in actual IMC”. But that is almost wholly in Class G where you are under own-nav, and even in Class D ATC will rarely if ever give you a DCT to a waypoint, because it isn’t really possible to do any enroute stuff in UK Class D. One is just doing short CAS transits.
If you fly MVFR can you trust your obstacle database if is not up to date – hundreds of new obstacles are added every month.
You would need to be doing some pretty crazy “VFR” to need an obstacle database in the GPS 
For a zero-zero approach to some runway – that’s different. But then you will probably be familiar with the place and anyway can usually safely assume that there isn’t going to be anything blocking the final approach. I think going into say Innsbruck using SV in zero-zero might be a challenge…
If you are flying “VFR” in IMC then why not do it properly and go a bit higher i.e. at/above the MSA?
There are very few places where the base of CAS is very close to the tops of man-made obstacles.
Is there any plan to make the 550 available as a primary AI?
Maybe. We’re focused on the initial cert as a “secondary, not required” piece of equipment. Once we have the FAA and EASA comfortable with attitude on a radio, we’ll pursue allowing it as a primary or backup. We designed the unit to allow that, architecturally.
That would be a very interesting development. Especially given the size of the screen, it would be a serious Aspen PFD if not a G500 competitor, at a very attractive price given the COM/NAV/GPS is included.
To use AHRS as a primary AI there are some additional certification requirements.
One has to “fix up” the gyro periodically.
Aspen did it using airdata and Garmin did it using GPS. Previous threads here and here (and others) and these show how you can get pretty dramatic failures if e.g. the pitot tube gets blocked on the Aspen.
It seems that an AHRS-only product (such as the Sandel SG102) cannot get certified as a primary AI.
Obviously Avidyne can solve this, but I suspect most of their target market views the IFD box as not something in the pilot’s primary field of view but as a nav+radio box which goes in the centre stack. IMHO the Aspen EFD and the G500 etc have eaten the lunch on what goes right in front of the pilot.
Peter,
I agree with you, until I look at this box and I see a mini G1000 – which is AI+HSI+COM/NAV/GPS (and other stuff too obviously) – at a fraction of the price.
The gyro issue is not a big deal, and clearly you’ll want an ADC to get Baro Alt and IAS, so I agree this is not fully ready, but by putting SynViz on such a unit, Avydine is thinking outside the box in an interesting way.
Avijake,
Btw it’s fantastic to have someone from the firm interacting on the forum. Thank you.
The IFD550 does have the option to display air data. I’ve pasted in an image that shows that below.
We use internal MEMS sensors for the attitude solution. To ensure we can meet the TSO-C201, we also use our internal GPS for aiding. We can still produce and display an attitude solution without GPS aiding but the TSO considers that a “degraded” mode.
Air data input comes from an external air data source (e.g. EFIS input, standalone air data computer, etc). When that air data input exists, the altitude and airspeed tapes are present. When it is not, they are not displayed.
