What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

GRT Sport IFR?

I have an RV-9A with all kinds of glass, and I've also worked at companies where I've had considerable exposure to Honeywell and RockwellCollins bizjet and airline avionics. The quote from a RC pilot, talking about their FMS, was "If we have all this trouble with it, how are customers supposed to deal with it?"

The bottom line is that it's not what's in the glass that matters, it's what you can use, error free, that matters. Glass cockpit training and manuals (industry wide, no specific allegations here) suck big time, one problem being that the manufacturers are so used to their own system that they don't see the shortcomings in their customer communications. And if you have ever studied or designed user interfaces, you can find numerous and obvious user interface problems pretty quickly with just about any system.

Bottom line: be real careful out there. IMC doesn't cut you much slack.
 
Anybody here fly IFR with there GRT sport?

I would suggest that :

1. You use at least two Sports. One in PFD mode and one in MAP mode
2. You have a tablet based app (Foreflight/WingX/Garmin Pilot etc/) for PLATES as you won't be able to view such on the Sport as you can on the HXr (nicely) and the HX (not as nice).
3. If you don't already have an autopilot, get the GRT servos and integrate that into your system.

My comments are based on flying with three Sport screens in an RV6 coupled to GRT servos. An Apple iPad and WingX supplies the plates and they get ADS-B traffic and weather from a SkyRadar receiver. The SAME ADS-B info is sent tot he Sport that is in MAP mode.

James
 
I have a Sport connected to a 300XL and an SL30, and fly IFR with it whenever necessary. The GRT stuff has been totally reliable for me for the past 8 years.
I have a 'steam guage' altimeter and ASI, as well as a TT ADI Pilot II as backups (and the TT is also my autopilot).

The nice thing about the GRT EFISs is that you have Synthetic Approaches to any runway in the database.

I agree with Ed's comments that knowing how to use your equipment is essential. I teach in G1000 aircraft and the 'buttonology' is everyone's biggest downfall. The GRT / 300XL (and/or whatever you have) is the same, make sure you are proficient before launching into the clouds.
 
Light IFR

I have to agree with Ed W. I might add a comment. I live in Prescott and we have a huge training population. Our airspace and radio chatter is filled daily with practice IFR approaches of all kinds. I don't know if this emphasis on practice approaches occurs where you live. If you are dilligent with your plane and avionics and get comfortable activating approaches and have geo referenced plates backed up on devices.... I think light IFR should be possible.
I just landed in the Portland area yesterday. Most of the trip has been VFR, but a layer of overcast allowed me to pick up a clearance and then do a GPS approach at Aurora. I knew we would break out at about 3500 feet so it would not be in question that we could land. If I had not used the IFR system, we would have backtracked to Bend and waited. Our day went on as planned, with the ability to do light IFR.
Recent time with foggles on (a new kind that are like light thin sunglasses) in the RV gives me a good approximation of cloud flying.
So, in summary.... the autopilot is crucial to single pilot IFR. (my wife is rated and helps with radios, checklists etc.)
Recent practice approaches and copying clearances...
Getting the fixes programmed into your boxes quickly and smoothly is very important. But it can be practiced over and over in the hangar on ground power. Being behind the curve while in the soup is not the place to be uncomfortable with your avionics due to less than stellar documentation... as mentioned by Ed.
Be careful and have fun out there.
 
I find it isn't the equipment installed in the aircraft but the proficiency of the pilot using it that matters. Back in the stone age we flew IFR with just an NDB. Being current is not the same as being proficient.
:cool:
 
So, in summary.... the autopilot is crucial to single pilot IFR. (my wife is rated and helps with radios, checklists etc.)

I might phrase this as the autopilot is really nice to have and that if an IFR trip can't be completed safely without the autopilot then it can't be completed safely with one, either.
 
I must admit I am old school...having gotten a single engine ATP back in the 1980's. Alaska bush flying did not involve much filing in the IFR system, but the rating avoided a biennial. It was kind of fun too.
The FAA back then saw autopilots as a crutch and often would not let pilots use them during checkouts. I have done 27 FAA checkrides including sea, helo, balloon, ATP single, multi, CFII part 135...
Now, the FAA looks at autopilot use differently. So do I. I read accident reports like some people read fiction. It is on ongoing interest and gives me insight into causal factors often glossed over in the newspaper.
Blanket categorical statements about whether a flight can be completed safely or not in regards to autopilots is far too easy and simplified.
For the original poster, I suggest you do lots of reading, lots of proficiency training and approaches... study the documentation very thoroughly.
Read the latest guidance from the experts on how autopilots have increased overall safety for single pilot IFR ops and then make your own best decisions. Glad you posted... GRT makes amazing black boxes. Things you and I probably could not have afforded just a few years ago. My hat is off to them and to the other companies in the same line of work.
 
Back to the OP's question: One difference between the Sport and the Horizon line is the number of input/output serial ports available. Count carefully. It is amazing how quickly you can fill them all up. Depending, of course, on how many things you want to interface to it.
 
Back to the OP's question: One difference between the Sport and the Horizon line is the number of input/output serial ports available. Count carefully. It is amazing how quickly you can fill them all up. Depending, of course, on how many things you want to interface to it.

I have a Sport SX (single screen) along with a Dynon D10 backup. To me, the main limitation in IFR would be the lack of geo-referenced approach plates. BUT, I have these on the iPad, and as others have said people have flown IFR just fine without all these conveniences, for a long time.

At least with a single-screen setup, the serial port issue doesn't seem like a huge limitation. Many functions only require half of a port anyways. For example, I have serial outputs to my transponder and GTR-200, and inputs from the EIS and Stratux ADS-B. That still leaves me three ports (in and out) open (edit, actually I believe one input is used by the internal GPS...). I plan to add autopilot at some point, and would still have an output port left.

I am rated but don't plan on IFR in my 9A anytime soon, but am plenty confident in the capability of the Sport EFIS. After finishing phase 1 a few evenings ago I went up after dusk and flew some synthetic approaches to the airport - it is a very cool feature and helpful even in good visibility when flying into an area with limited visual clues. I plan to activate it for every night approach.

Chris
 
Last edited:
I have a Sport SX (single screen) along with a Dynon D10 backup. To me, the main limitation in IFR would be the lack of geo-referenced approach plates. BUT, I have these on the iPad, and as others have said people have flown IFR just fine without all these conveniences, for a long time.

At least with a single-screen setup, the serial port issue doesn't seem like a huge limitation. Many functions only require half of a port anyways. For example, I have serial outputs to my transponder and GTR-200, and inputs from the EIS and Stratux ADS-B. That still leaves me three ports (in and out) open (edit, actually I believe one input is used by the internal GPS...). I plan to add autopilot at some point, and would still have an output port left.

I am rated but don't plan on IFR in my 9A anytime soon, but am plenty confident in the capability of the Sport EFIS. After finishing phase 1 a few evenings ago I went up after dusk and flew some synthetic approaches to the airport - it is a very cool feature and helpful even in good visibility when flying into an area with limited visual clues. I plan to activate it for every night approach.

Chris

Add the autopilot and, by 2020, a UAT, and you'll have zero ports left. Plan carefully; remember that while a port has both input and output lines, they are not completely independent - they both need to run at the same baud rate. As I said, it all depends on what you have or want. It's just a detail many - including myself - didn't think about too much. In my case it was luck more than skilled planning!
 
Add the autopilot and, by 2020, a UAT, and you'll have zero ports left. Plan carefully; remember that while a port has both input and output lines, they are not completely independent - they both need to run at the same baud rate. As I said, it all depends on what you have or want. It's just a detail many - including myself - didn't think about too much. In my case it was luck more than skilled planning!

There are ways around the serial port shortage, Chris. You could always ditch that Dynon and put a Mini in there to give you another serial port and a connected yet independent control head for your autopilot.
 
I have an RV-9A with all kinds of glass, and I've also worked at companies where I've had considerable exposure to Honeywell and RockwellCollins bizjet and airline avionics. The quote from a RC pilot, talking about their FMS, was "If we have all this trouble with it, how are customers supposed to deal with it?"

The bottom line is that it's not what's in the glass that matters, it's what you can use, error free, that matters. Glass cockpit training and manuals (industry wide, no specific allegations here) suck big time, one problem being that the manufacturers are so used to their own system that they don't see the shortcomings in their customer communications. And if you have ever studied or designed user interfaces, you can find numerous and obvious user interface problems pretty quickly with just about any system.

Bottom line: be real careful out there. IMC doesn't cut you much slack.

So many excellent , informative replies. I'm not really qualified to add anything just my thought of how behind the curve I am with all that these systems have to offer and my abilty to use to their capability . I have the sport and it's been great, just what I needed ,but now I realize that if I really want to maximize my RV or any aircraft for that matter and do the cross countries that I'm going to do I really need to earn my IFR rating and also be comfortable with my planes IFR capabilities and I'm just talking light IFR . These systems are amazing but for someone like me to be able to use them to there capacity I would honestly have to go to a training seminar for a week and after that I would have to use it on a regular basis just to stay current. I want to train IFR in my aircraft so I have to understand how to use my EFIS proficiently in that capacity but I don't want to totally rely on it alone . Perfect example, as I was climbing out the other day ,VFR , the AHRS failed and all I had in the plane was airspeed and altitude . In that situation , VFR , it wasn't a big deal I just tuned it off for a minute or two and tuned it back on and it eventually rest itself but I gotta say that got me thinking that I really need a back if I plan on Future IFR flying. The auto pilot servos will be on order very soon too . You can sure spend a lot of money on all this inceredible technology but in the end what do you really, really need to get you through the tough weather when you find yourself there. Build my panel please, with my Existing GRT Sport because I'm overwhelmed and getting short on cash.
 
Andy,

Given your current config and given that you plan to order the GRT servos, I would suggest that you either a) add another Sport or b) add a couple of MINIs.

You will have independent AHRSs and either unit can control the Autopilot Servos.

This is probably the least expensive approach for your setup.
 
James , Exactly my thoughts. Ive already decided to make the call to GRT in the AM.
Thanks for the input. Love my RV , have no desire for another aircraft, just wanna to set it up right and use it to its potential . Originally wanted the 6 , still do. But my 9 is fantastic also.
230 hrs RV time less, than 2 years ownership.
Andy.
 
Upgrade available which adds a set of ports

If you don't have it already there is a upgrade to the Sport that will get you a fifth set of ports. I will need to go this route on mine when I put the ADS-B into play. I don't recall seeing that mentioned in the posts. Like James said if you add another Sport (which I will do later) you would be good to go port wise.
 
I would suggest that :

1. You use at least two Sports. One in PFD mode and one in MAP mode
2. You have a tablet based app (Foreflight/WingX/Garmin Pilot etc/) for PLATES as you won't be able to view such on the Sport as you can on the HXr (nicely) and the HX (not as nice).
3. If you don't already have an autopilot, get the GRT servos and integrate that into your system.

My comments are based on flying with three Sport screens in an RV6 coupled to GRT servos. An Apple iPad and WingX supplies the plates and they get ADS-B traffic and weather from a SkyRadar receiver. The SAME ADS-B info is sent tot he Sport that is in MAP mode.


James

This is pretty much what will work best for me as far as redundancy and affordability. Covers pretty much everything and honestly the tablet stuff (fore flight) is amazing , . A Huge cost saver and I dont fly cross country without it.
Thanks for the input .
 
Back
Top