Update for Mooney WAAS, ADS-B Upgrades for Stec equipped planes

[Bob5151F]

I would also add that I do not blame the people named above. They are good technical folks and do not necessarily make resource allocation decisions within Mooney. We need to get the attention of their management! 

[OR75]

21 minutes ago, Bob5151F said:

It is a safety issue because WAAS allows precision approaches with lower minimums. Having flown a lot of IFR and living in the Pacific NW, there are a lot of airports where having lower minimums would allow more options especially in case of a problem.

I figured that's what you probably meant.  However, I don't consider that a safety issue but rather a choice issue.  I would hate to see "our friends who are here to help" start mandating extra stuff to fly IFR.

Ultimately, why not mandate that all aircrafts equip and crew qualify to make Cat I, II or IIIa, b, or c approaches.

 

[Bob5151F]

I would agree we don't want "our friends" being too helpful. Having flown a lot of IFR, I always like to have choices because mother nature is a real practical joker.

[Deb]

4 hours ago, teejayevans said:

Why is this a Mooneys only problem? Were there no other planes built with G1000/STEC combo? Why is this not a Garmin issue?

It is also a Beechcraft/Textron issue and a Diamond issue. By contrast, Cirrus has had several updates.

In our case, it's both a Mooney issue and a Garmin issue. Garmin needs to supply Mooney with TSO'd software. Mooney needs to certify the software and then issue a Service Bulletin for installation. The G1000 and the software are part of the airframe Type Certificate, so everything has to go through Mooney.

Here's a recent thread at Beechtalk: http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=126428&start=0

[OR75]

Again, I understand the frustration of not being able to get the capability that WAAS brings.

But again, the only mandate coming is ADS-B out and options already exist so that no aircraft have to be grounded.  

 

[Txbyker]

9 hours ago, donkaye said:

As of Oshkosh last week, the Ultras have NOT been FAA approved.

Thanks Don that is what I was wondering.

Being in Texas I sometimes pick up vibes and information by osmosis.  Me and my CFI who is a MAPA Proficiency wig took a ride to Kerrville a couple of months ago to ask about WAAS (was in KERV on business).  No one would see us as it seems the FAA was there and 99% attention went to that.  Then I was told by another local GGG based individual that Mooney thought they would present certification of the Ultra at EAA.  You've got to think Mr. Chen may be starting to pucker a bit.  I have been told we are on the priority list for WAAS/STEC but I have to think we are on a cold back burner until the FAA certifies their investment.  Just my 2 cents.  

In some regards we may be fortunate that we have a boutique brand, whereby we can actually speak to the leaders as opposed to Textron as David indicated in his posted Beech link.

This post is as an optimist.  I deserve the right to change on future pages.

Russ

[tony]

On ‎8‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 8:41 AM, Bob_Belville said:

Question: Perhaps asked and answered above... 

I am not a lawyer and I have not checked the details of the transaction by which Jerry Chen and his investors created Mooney International and "acquired" assets. It is very possible the present company did not acquire the legal liability from the previous corporate entities. Did they buy the outstanding stock or just defined assets?

IOW, for those considering legal action, have you verified that MI, the current corporation, is liable?

Unless Mr. Chen wants to surrender the type certificates on the older models (and if he does he will never certify another aircraft in the United States again) Mooney International is responsible for the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. 

I think the best approach here would be for the group in question, to submit a well written complaint to the FAA that Mooney is ignoring there obligations under FAA order 8110.54A which is public law.  At the same time petition the FAA for an exemption for Mooney equipped with G100 to the ADSB mandate.  Explain that there is nothing an owner operator can do without Mooney's help.  The group needs to just make it difficult for Mooney to proceed with the certification of the M10.  That's the only way you will get management's attention to redirect priorities at the company.  You have to hit Mr. Chen in his pocket book. 

And getting this done is really no big deal for Mooney.  They just need to get the update from Garmin, verify the installed performance, and then add the update to the existing TC. 

 

Edited August 4, 2016 by tony

[keithmiller]

I think this is the best plan yet , where do we sign up !

[kortopates]

3 hours ago, tony said:

I think the best approach here would be for the group in question, to submit a well written complaint to the FAA that Mooney is ignoring there obligations under FAA order 8110.54A which is public law.  At the same time petition the FAA for an exemption for Mooney equipped with G100 to the ADSB mandate.  Explain that there is nothing an owner operator can do without Mooney's help.  ....

I what way do you believe that Mooney is obligated to provide updates to the ICA post production and in anyway make as owners in anyway obligated to follow them?

The reasoning you are quoting all stems from the misunderstood term of "current" as used in the context of Section 91.409(f)(3) of the regulations, which permits the operator to rely on “the current inspection program recommended by the manufacturer.” The FAA chief legal counsel memo has held that "current" as referenced makes it clear this phrase means the program at the time it was initially published, and it does not include the subsequent amendments to the program. The chief counsel memo goes on to explain that "if "current" was allowed to mean an ongoing obligation, manufacturers unilaterally could impose regulatory burdens on individuals through changes to their inspection programs or maintenance manuals. In essence, they would be making rules that members of the public affected by the change would have to follow."  Which thankfully the FAA realizes none of us really want. For a good read on this see: https://www.aea.net/AvionicsNews/ANArchives/LegalEaseSept09.pdf

So clearly Mooney is not legally able to issue updates to the ICA that we are bound too. And although I am not an attorney, I have seen no valid argument so far that convinces me that Mooney has any legal obligation to provide a WAAS update based on ICA requirements or FARs. Their legal obligation may be limited to what marketing promises they make at the time of sale. But as Bob has pointed out, if such an obligation did exist, even these are likely no longer appliacable to the new Mooney company currently responsible. I think in truth, Mooney only has a moral obligation and one to maintain their marketing reputation. I certainly have no inside knowledge of their plans but I believe like most others here they will eventually get to it.

But we have also seen Garmin provide an ADS-B solution for these with the Gtx-345 - it just needs the optional WAAS gps and will not entirely integrate its functionality till the G1000 can get the newer s/w which I presume won't be till the Mooney G1000 WAAS update. But meeting ADS-B compliance is doable right now. Which unfortunately kinds takes off some of the pressure for Mooney to certify the WAAS G1000 upgrade. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by kortopates

[tony]

Thank you for the article,  I scanned it this morning and will read it this evening when I have more time.  My first impression is that this is written for the owner operator not the OEM.  Part 91 are operating rules not certification criteria.  The holder of the TC is responsible for keeping their ICA current.  Hence the silly AD that came out a few years ago that made everyone in the fleet inspect the hinge for the empennage. 

I don't know the answer here, I'm just trying to come up with suggestions to help the group in question formulate a way forward.  Mooney needs to support their existing owner operators in a way to keep their fleet relevant and flying. 

[ArtVandelay]

Again, I understand the frustration of not being able to get the capability that WAAS brings.

But again, the only mandate coming is ADS-B out and options already exist so that no aircraft have to be grounded.  

 

And that's not until 2020, assuming it doesn't get delayed.

[kortopates]

15 minutes ago, tony said:

The holder of the TC is responsible for keeping their ICA current. 

The "current" ICA is officially the one that Mooney published when the aircraft was manufactured. The manufacturer can update the ICA all they want after the aircraft has been manufactured but we are only obligated to follow the "current" which means current version at time of production. The point of the article is that the FAA legal counsel has ruled the manufacturer can not legally make updates that retroactively now apply to us. Only the FAA can do that in the form of an Airworthiness Directive (AD).

[Jeff_S]

As one of the affected owners, I have as much interest as anybody in getting a resolution to the full WAAS capability.  I bought into my plane knowing and accepting the risk of this not happening. The market typically does provide answers when they're needed, and in this case Garmin came through in a big way with the GTX345 option. I don't relish the thought of cutting into the empennage to add another GPS antenna, but at least I know I can if I need to. And I'm starting to seriously consider doing this now, in advance of a full Mooney solution, to get the traffic benefit outside of TIS-A areas.

As to having full WAAS capability on approach...yeah, that would be comfortable to have. But a very good friend, Delta pilot and fellow Mooney driver with a tricked-out 201 complete with G600 WAAS capability confided to me that as long as he's had that set-up, he's flown an actual WAAS approach all of one time (and he flies that thing across the country regularly). And I know from experience that with the SVT in the G1000 and that glorious Flight Path Marker (aka "meatball"), getting yourself onto glide path and holding it there in a standard LNAV approach is really easy...only difference being the autopilot won't capture it. 

It's a good thing the engine and wings don't know the difference between a WAAS or non-WAAS receiver...otherwise you'd think the plane would fall from the sky without it!

[Jeff_S]

I don't want to jump the gun on this until it's officially published by Mooney, but I have seen a letter written by Tom Bowen to a Mooney owner that spells out the path for getting our G1000 w/STEC systems fully upgraded to WAAS and ADS-B.  I believe the recipient of that letter is a Mooneyspacer so if he chooses to publish that letter that's his prerogative. But it points out a three-phase approach to getting the WAAS GIA units in place first following SB20-305A, adding the G1000 s/w upgrade and WAAS capability through a device and method that is supposed to be published as a new SB next month, and then finally with some potential upgrades to the STEC unit. 

So, it seems that we're seeing progress and I look forward to Mooney making this official very soon. The unknowns still are cost, especially the costs of swapping in the WAAS GIA units and the expected ADS-B unit.  There is some hope/speculation that if we banded together we might be able to do some negotiation for bulk pricing at least for the GIAs, but that is pure speculation right now. At any rate, the new CEO will supposedly be at the Mooney Summit next month and with any luck the new SB will be published and we can have a meaningful discussion about this.

Fingers crossed!

[mike_elliott]

On ‎5‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 11:50 PM, Samurai Husky said:

4 hours ago, Jeff_S said:

I don't want to jump the gun on this until it's officially published by Mooney, but I have seen a letter written by Tom Bowen to a Mooney owner that spells out the path for getting our G1000 w/STEC systems fully upgraded to WAAS and ADS-B.  I believe the recipient of that letter is a Mooneyspacer so if he chooses to publish that letter that's his prerogative. But it points out a three-phase approach to getting the WAAS GIA units in place first following SB20-305A, adding the G1000 s/w upgrade and WAAS capability through a device and method that is supposed to be published as a new SB next month, and then finally with some potential upgrades to the STEC unit. 

So, it seems that we're seeing progress and I look forward to Mooney making this official very soon. The unknowns still are cost, especially the costs of swapping in the WAAS GIA units and the expected ADS-B unit.  There is some hope/speculation that if we banded together we might be able to do some negotiation for bulk pricing at least for the GIAs, but that is pure speculation right now. At any rate, the new CEO will supposedly be at the Mooney Summit next month and with any luck the new SB will be published and we can have a meaningful discussion about this.

Fingers crossed!

 

 

Jeff, I certainly hope the stec G1000 owners don't filibuster Dr. Saxena's, Tom Bowen's, or Dirk Vanderzee's time at the Mooney Summit with this as has happened at OSH, SunNFun, last year at the Summit, and I am sure MAPA homecoming along with calls made weekly, personal visits to Kerrville about this, etc.

They will announce their plans when they have their plans to announce. Prodding the Management at Mooney about it continually will only keep them from wanting to participate in events like the Mooney Summit. Should they address the issue? Yes, they should and will, but perhaps their roadmap isn't to address it at the Mooney Summit and then again, maybe it is. It is their call, not ours.  I know this isn't what G1000 stec owners want to hear, but the Mooney Summit IV isn't the venue to battle Mooney International for personal wants.

There isn't a question that they will be at the Mooney Summit IV this year, the only question is how classy our guests, the Mooney Summit attendee's, can be in their presence. Mooney will be buying all of us dinner Saturday night, from the oldest C model owner to a couple of 2016 Acclaim owners alike. I hope each of the attendee's have a chance to thank Vivek, Tom and Dirk for their interest in our mission, "to better the breed" and for their support, and not to beat them up.

[carusoam]

I wrote some notes for myself, as if I were a G1000 owner...

1) The spirit of cooperation seems to go pretty far.

2) Maintaining a Positive attitude is sure to be a challenge.  Many AMUs on the line.

3) People with G1000s in their panel have got stick-to-it-iveness.  That's how they got G1000s in the first place.

4) plan on articulating what you are looking for...  Solutions to the list of challenges. G1000 owners know their list of challenges.  

5) Find a proper spot and time slot to cover them.

6) Allow G to respond fully.

7) Most importantly...  The Summit is growing into an annual Mooney information exchange Bonanza hot bed.  No single topic can outweigh the others.

8) We have come a long way from the chicken in every pot and car in every garage days...

Let something like... let there be a Garmin in every plane, and a Mooney in every hangar be the guidance.

9) Maintain the focus in your best professional manner.

10) Maintain respect for everyone there.

 

This comes from all the management classes I've been subjected to in my career.  They are the baseline of how to achieve a goal with various interests coming from the variety of people that will be there.

On a side note: I have nearly a dozen Garmin products in my household.  Just no GTN or G500 yet.  Sort of a Garmin in every car thing... 

Best regards,

-a-

 

 

 

 

[Jeff_S]

11 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Jeff, I certainly hope the stec G1000 owners don't filibuster Dr. Saxena's, Tom Bowen's, or Dirk Vanderzee's time at the Mooney Summit with this as has happened at OSH, SunNFun, last year at the Summit, and I am sure MAPA homecoming along with calls made weekly, personal visits to Kerrville about this, etc.

They will announce their plans when they have their plans to announce. Prodding the Management at Mooney about it continually will only keep them from wanting to participate in events like the Mooney Summit. Should they address the issue? Yes, they should and will, but perhaps their roadmap isn't to address it at the Mooney Summit and then again, maybe it is. It is their call, not ours.  I know this isn't what G1000 stec owners want to hear, but the Mooney Summit IV isn't the venue to battle Mooney International for personal wants.

There isn't a question that they will be at the Mooney Summit IV this year, the only question is how classy our guests, the Mooney Summit attendee's, can be in their presence. Mooney will be buying all of us dinner Saturday night, from the oldest C model owner to a couple of 2016 Acclaim owners alike. I hope each of the attendee's have a chance to thank Vivek, Tom and Dirk for their interest in our mission, "to better the breed" and for their support, and not to beat them up.

Mike, I wasn't at the other events you mentioned except for the Mooney Summit last year, but during that event I didn't get the feel that this one issue over-rode all others. Perhaps I missed a meeting! But also, the tone of my note was actually quite hopeful (I thought) and my point about the Summit was that based on what I saw in the letter, there may be the new SB out by that time so it would be a good venue to discuss that SB. I have always maintained a positive approach and attitude about this issue.

That said, I think the G1000-STEC owners have had a legitimate reason to be concerned about the upgrade path for these planes, and Mooney didn't do themselves any favors by not being more open with communications on this issue over the last few years. Tom B actually alluded to this in the letter I saw. I know there had been idle talk about a class action law suit but no one really wanted or wants that...instead that should just be a signal to the company about how much we love our birds and want to be able to enjoy them with all the latest advances in safety and capability.

But again, it seems like the corner has finally been turned and if the new SB is indeed published by the time of the Summit then all the conversations should be very good indeed. I will be there with bells on!

Cheers.

[mike_elliott]

Thanks Jeff, We are all optimistic! And thanks for the very generous, kind donation to the Mooney Summit this morning. I look forward to seeing you again!

[Robert C.]

On 8/24/2016 at 7:24 AM, Jeff_S said:

I don't want to jump the gun on this until it's officially published by Mooney, but I have seen a letter written by Tom Bowen to a Mooney owner that spells out the path for getting our G1000 w/STEC systems fully upgraded to WAAS and ADS-B.  I believe the recipient of that letter is a Mooneyspacer so if he chooses to publish that letter that's his prerogative. But it points out a three-phase approach to getting the WAAS GIA units in place first following SB20-305A, adding the G1000 s/w upgrade and WAAS capability through a device and method that is supposed to be published as a new SB next month, and then finally with some potential upgrades to the STEC unit. 

So, it seems that we're seeing progress and I look forward to Mooney making this official very soon. The unknowns still are cost, especially the costs of swapping in the WAAS GIA units and the expected ADS-B unit.  There is some hope/speculation that if we banded together we might be able to do some negotiation for bulk pricing at least for the GIAs, but that is pure speculation right now. At any rate, the new CEO will supposedly be at the Mooney Summit next month and with any luck the new SB will be published and we can have a meaningful discussion about this.

Fingers crossed!

Good news, let's hope the MSer shares the letter

Sounds like the original upgrade path but without the GFC700, which may mean anything from $25k-$50k, Think the path with the GF700 was $50-70k at one point. 

The letter as quoted implies they are able to get the S-Tec version certified which means that they must have the test flying program ready to go.

As you said: fingers crossed!

[Jeff_S]

Okay folks, we've got progress. This revised SB20-305A came out today, which addresses adding the WAAS capability to the S-TEC equipped G1000 planes. If you've already got the -30 software (which I think most do) then the Option 2 in the attached is the option that our S-TEC planes can use.  The only drawback to this is that they are saying the A/P won't couple with the glide path on GPS approaches...although it should still work fine on ILS's.  So big deal, we haven't had that anyway so no great loss.  A final SB will be required to allow coupling of the S-TEC to the GPS glide path after Mooney collects data and Cobham evaluates. There is no commitment yet on timeframe for that SB.

Also, this doesn't address ADS-B, but again, the notes I wrote above indicate that there may be yet another SB issued still this month that would provide the path to ADS-B.

What this means is that, with Option 2 of the now released SB20 305A that gets us to WAAS, and hopefully a new SB very soon to address ADS-B, we could be very close to awesome before the end of the year. If all this comes out in time, I plan to get it done during my IFR cert work in October. That is of course if the cost is manageable...that's the one outlier yet. I have a call into my avionics guy to inquire about that, as there is no detail in this SB.

At any rate, it's forward progress, which is a good thing.

M20_305A.pdf

[Robert C.]

Jeff, why not option 3? That'll be usable when they get the STec/G1000W certified which is supposed to be in the works.

[Jeff_S]

It's not really clear in the SB but Frank Crawford confirmed for me that the STEC systems will use Option 2. It makes sense, though, since the STEC can't do all the VNAV stuff that the GFC700 can. Yes, the glide path coupling will be a follow-on SB after Mooney & Cobham finalize it, timeframe not yet committed.

Between us girls, it will be interesting to see if the STEC truly won't capture the GPS glide path, or if the installation will only state that it's not supported. Perhaps the former, but my STEC 55 captured the GPS glide path just fine with the GNS480 in my old J, so technically we know it CAN work. Just not sure what's in the G1000 software that would keep it from working.

[Robert C.]

OK, thanks for the clarification.

[Txbyker]

If I read this correctly, we need software plus new GIA's?  My plane has been at SW Aviation with the STEC servo at Cobham for a few weeks.  Since the factory dialog is open I will investigate the upgrade path and costs.

Russ 

[LANCECASPER]

17 hours ago, Jeff_S said:

Okay folks, we've got progress. This revised SB20-305A came out today, which addresses adding the WAAS capability to the S-TEC equipped G1000 planes.

That's great to hear. I'm happy for the STEC G1000 owners!