Avionics Upgrade for the 310

cirrusmx said:
How do people like the small size of those aspens?
Click to expand...

Just fine for what it's used for. I asked some other Twin Cessna owners about a second Aspen for on-board charts and they all said it was too small for that, but also worked fine as an MFD for backup, SV, trasffic/wx, etc.

It's a well laid out display and is basically the size of an AI/HSI. Which makes sense since that's its primary use.
 
Question - for folks who by two of the Aspen units for a PFD/MFD setup with reversion - are you still required to have the third gyro (standby AI or TC)?

It's never made sense to me given that in that installation you have
Two redundant AHRS
Each system has it's own standby battery.

I'd think that clearly meets the "two separate independently powered gyros" that the spirit of the regs for IFR operations requires.
 
Tim, it depends on the specifics of the install. If you get a second Aspen with external battery (replaced every 3 years, I think) on its separate bus, and a few other regs, you can get rid of almost all of the standby instruments. But just adding an MFD1000 to your PFD1000 will not allow you to get rid of the standby gyros.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Tim, it depends on the specifics of the install. If you get a second Aspen with external battery (replaced every 3 years, I think) on its separate bus, and a few other regs, you can get rid of almost all of the standby instruments. But just adding an MFD1000 to your PFD1000 will not allow you to get rid of the standby gyros.
Click to expand...

I always thought that rule was a little over the top. You can't rely on one Aspen, BUT you can fly IFR with one POS DG.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I always thought that rule was a little over the top. You can't rely on one Aspen, BUT you can fly IFR with one POS DG.
Click to expand...

Well, keep in mind that an Aspen gives you ASI, AI, TC, altimeter, VSI, HSI (for both Nav 1 and Nav 2). That makes for a pretty massive single point of failure if you replace all of those instruments with one Aspen. If you think about it, with a standard 6-pack you really have three systems running them - vacuum, pitot/stat, and electrical. If any one instrument fails, no big deal. If any one system fails, not a huge deal, especially since you have a backup static system. If the one Aspen fails, then you lose all of that. If the electrical system fails, you have a limited amount of time before the Aspen will then fail, and with the internal battery, that time will be dependent on battery condition.

If you have two Aspens, then you're better off since you can lose one Aspen and still have a full backup. However, if they're on the same electrical bus and the internal batteries have the same age concern, you still have a failure concern. So actually I think the certification requirements are pretty reasonable, because it eliminates single point failures that you'd expect to happen.

With one Aspen, you need to have an ASI, AI, altimeter, and CDI as backup instruments. The TC is technically optional, but most people choose to keep it unless it'll somehow get in the way. With two Aspens, I'm pretty sure it just goes down to needing a backup AI, which is same as what you have for transport category.

I always figured that if I built my experimental twin, it would be all glass. But the left and right side would have completely independent electrical systems, including batteries. There would be a bus tie between them, of course, but that would give me sufficient redundancy for my liking.
 
cirrusmx said:
How do people like the small size of those aspens?
Click to expand...

I like it fine in my 421, I would have preferred the G600, but luckily for my bank account the G600 won't play with my autopilot!;) it's been a good addition to my panel, I may add one to the 182 if my son pursues his IR. :D
 
I think a recent software revision increased the font size. The original models were pretty squinty.

Ted DuPuis said:
Just fine for what it's used for. I asked some other Twin Cessna owners about a second Aspen for on-board charts and they all said it was too small for that, but also worked fine as an MFD for backup, SV, trasffic/wx, etc.

It's a well laid out display and is basically the size of an AI/HSI. Which makes sense since that's its primary use.
Click to expand...
 
TMetzinger said:
Question - for folks who by two of the Aspen units for a PFD/MFD setup with reversion - are you still required to have the third gyro (standby AI or TC)?

It's never made sense to me given that in that installation you have
Two redundant AHRS
Each system has it's own standby battery.

I'd think that clearly meets the "two separate independently powered gyros" that the spirit of the regs for IFR operations requires.
Click to expand...

As Ted mentioned, with the external battery version of the MFD 1000 (and it costs $1000 more, how convenient) you can remove your ASI and altimeter. The AI needs to stay. I don't believe the TC can be the backup.

I think the intent is as you mention, two separate independent power sources for the gyros.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Well, keep in mind that an Aspen gives you ASI, AI, TC, altimeter, VSI, HSI (for both Nav 1 and Nav 2). That makes for a pretty massive single point of failure if you replace all of those instruments with one Aspen. If you think about it, with a standard 6-pack you really have three systems running them - vacuum, pitot/stat, and electrical. If any one instrument fails, no big deal. If any one system fails, not a huge deal, especially since you have a backup static system. If the one Aspen fails, then you lose all of that. If the electrical system fails, you have a limited amount of time before the Aspen will then fail, and with the internal battery, that time will be dependent on battery condition.

If you have two Aspens, then you're better off since you can lose one Aspen and still have a full backup. However, if they're on the same electrical bus and the internal batteries have the same age concern, you still have a failure concern. So actually I think the certification requirements are pretty reasonable, because it eliminates single point failures that you'd expect to happen.

With one Aspen, you need to have an ASI, AI, altimeter, and CDI as backup instruments. The TC is technically optional, but most people choose to keep it unless it'll somehow get in the way. With two Aspens, I'm pretty sure it just goes down to needing a backup AI, which is same as what you have for transport category.

I always figured that if I built my experimental twin, it would be all glass. But the left and right side would have completely independent electrical systems, including batteries. There would be a bus tie between them, of course, but that would give me sufficient redundancy for my liking.
Click to expand...

Just a few more tidbits to add to Ted's comments; if you have a TC driven AP like my STEC, it needs to stay. They do have a remote mount alternative (EA 100) for the other series (like the Kings).

You also get RMIs. The HSI function is separate from two RMI type pointers. They each can have their own Nav signal running in conjunction with your primary HSI. Useful for crossing waypoints or tracking a localizer from your second radio.

The Aspen units also have their own GPS antennae and can store the primary GPS flight plan in case you lose that radio. It can't be changed, but your magenta line will still be there but driven by the Aspen.

With the second MFD 1000, you get a full backup to the PFD. It has a comple AHRS including GPS antennae. My MFD is on a separate power switch. So in theory, if my alternator dies, I can shut down the MFD, run off of the PFD until it's battery is nearly dead (has a timer) and then power up the MFD transfer PFD Nav information using reversion and run it down.

The biggest selling point for me was interfacing to older equipment. I wasn't ready to pull the plug on both of my Nav/Coms, so I replaced one this year with a GTN 650 and had my Narco 12D+ interfaced to the Aspens.
 
Last edited:
cirrusmx said:
How do people like the small size of those aspens?
Click to expand...

As was pointed out below, a firmware update made the fonts larger. The only challenging thing to read is the approach plates on the MFD. They did make it easy for you to zoom in on them and I find that I rather keep the full plates on my iPad or Nexus and just use the MFD plates zoomed in for the profile section of the approach plate.
 
N747JB said:
I like it fine in my 421, I would have preferred the G600, but luckily for my bank account the G600 won't play with my autopilot!;) it's been a good addition to my panel, I may add one to the 182 if my son pursues his IR. :D
Click to expand...

I looked really hard at the G600 but had a hard time justifying the extra expense and lesser features. But the bigger display sure is purty. Garmin addressed the lack of interface with older equipment with their GAD 43e but at last look still don't have a battery backup integral to the unit and the MFD does not have its own AHRS. You lose the PFD function, you lose the unit.
 
I own a Computer Repair business. I might be able to make in kind donations as far as a computer workstation and/or server if you have the need, when you have the need. PM me with your needs if interested. I can ship them to you or you can pick them up on your empty return trips flying over Kansas if there is no hurry.

Ted DuPuis said:
Look up the ownership of the 310, and you'll see it's owned by Cloud Nine Rescue Flights. So it's not mine. Hence why I refer to it as "the 310" or "the 310 I fly." I may slip up and call it mine now and then, but not intentionally, and I don't view it that way, even though others do. But to clear up confusion, there isn't any problem with a non-profit renting an asset, including from a board member. My Aztec used to be rented by Cloud Nine at a rate that was consistently less than the actual operating costs, and left me consistently subsidizing the plane. I intentionally didn't want Cloud Nine to risk having costs it could not pay, which put the burden instead on me. The 310 being a donated asset belongs directly to Cloud Nine.

You asked if the donors know what their money is spent on. Probably not, because most of them likely assume that Cloud Nine has paid staff. We don't. Nobody gets paid, not even me. Well, the A&Ps do get paid for the work they do, but they do discount it. The donors probably also don't know that I pay for any personal flights I do out of pocket, at a rate that is consistently higher than our actual costs and if anything higher than what you'd expect to rent a 310 for elsewhere, but also makes sure that am no time do I risk taking advantage of the non-profit or have the appearance of such. So I'm a professional pilot that doesn't get paid, and also runs a non-profit corporation for free, which at one time was a 60 hour per week job on top of my day job. Free time? What's that? But I do get insulting comments and insinuations from people who think the cause is stupid or that clearly anyone who starts a non-profit can only be trying to steal or misuse funding from what few donors we can find.

So, where did the money come from? Well, to be honest it's none of your business. But we didn't have anywhere close to enough in the bank account to pay for the engine overhauls or the avionics upgrade, and there was no loan taken out to cover it, and no money owed to me or anyone else, not even in the form of flight hour credits. But my wallet is lighter. I'll let you do the math.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I think a recent software revision increased the font size. The original models were pretty squinty.
Click to expand...

I've heard that, although only had the newer firmware with larger text. For me, it's a clear screen and I have no issues reading anything.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I own a Computer Repair business. I might be able to make in kind donations as far as a computer workstation and/or server if you have the need, when you have the need. PM me with your needs if interested. I can ship them to you or you can pick them up on your empty return trips flying over Kansas if there is no hurry.
Click to expand...

Offer appreciated. Currently we have no need - our server space is donated and our computing needs otherwise are filled by our laptops. Will keep that in mind, though.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
She's an old bird - 1968. Certified in MPH so the Aspen has to display that. The factory ASI shows MPH on the outer ring and KTS on the inner ring.

And thanks. :)
Click to expand...

Does it have to display it, or be 'set up' in it? I can switch between the two on the G-600 and typically display knots just to make the mental math easier.
 
Henning said:
Does it have to display it, or be 'set up' in it? I can switch between the two on the G-600 and typically display knots just to make the mental math easier.
Click to expand...

I believe the Aspen default speed labels (knots vs. mph) is set at the time of installation. My plane's POH shows both speeds as does my ASI. I elected to present everything in knots to simplify things.
 
Henning said:
Does it have to display it, or be 'set up' in it? I can switch between the two on the G-600 and typically display knots just to make the mental math easier.
Click to expand...

The Aspen only will display in one speed unit, so it has to be set up for the speed unit that the plane was certified in. That is an annoying feature, I'd like if they updated that in firmware since you can change baro units.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top