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

[Danb]

Glad to have you aboard JD..now if you could join our cause in contacting the Mooney Co. on a regular basis to attempt to get this done for us.

They seem to be able to put there time, effort and technological skill to get the new Mooney up and flying, the M10T just completed a 15 min.or so flight now how about putting some of those efforts in getting your loyal customers a WAAS and ADSB completed project for our planes.

Can anyone spell class action suit. It needs to be done!

[Jeff_S]

While I agree with the frustration, I'm not sure a class action lawsuit would help the situation. All that would mean is Mooney has to spend more time and money handling the lawsuit instead of getting the problem resolved.  Rather than the "stick" approach, I would be in favor of a "carrot" in terms of some level of commitment to pay for the solution, assuming we had the right level of guarantees in place. We've opened that idea before...but we've never really followed through on it with Mooney as a group. I know David has been talking to them about it personally.

2016 could be the time to act on it.

[Danb]

Jeff, I also have been speaking with them personally since 2008,. my frustration level is off the charts. I almost had the autopilot waas conversion in 2008 but ran scared due to the worry my plane would be in there custody while in bankruptcy. It certainly seems as though the 'carrot' approach has failed miserably. I'm in for any useful attempts to rectify the situation, our planes have diminished enough is FMV already, so what's your solution?

 

[Txbyker]

I don't think it's the promise of revenue or availability of certification planes.  It seems like it's a lack of priority.  At least Mooney had time to launch the "certified" pre-owned program although those planes with STEC will not be legal either.

[OR75]

I am not sure what the exact issue is here. 

But it seems to me there are lots of ways of getting ads-b equipped that are independant of any existing existing avionics. Some are among the cheapest in the market. The Freeflight or Navworks systems or L3 transponder come to mind. I bet these will be a magnitude cheaper than any Mooney solution. 

I understand those won't get you the vnav capability. 

Was there a commitment from Mooney when the aircraft were purchased new ? 

Pardon my ignorance here 

Edited January 2, 2016 by OR75

[Marauder]

I am not sure what the exact issue is here. 

But it seems to me there are lots of ways of getting ads-b equipped that are independant of any existing existing avionics. Some are among the cheapest in the market. The Freeflight or Navworks systems or L3 transponder come to mind. I bet these will be a magnitude cheaper than any Mooney solution. 

I understand those won't get you the vnav capability. 

Was there a commitment from Mooney when the aircraft were purchased new ? 

Pardon my ignorance here 

It's more than the ADS-B piece. Having seen Dan's plane up close, you can understand the frustration of laying out that kind of money and not being able to take advantage of the current GPS technology available. Since the G1000 is an integrated solution with the airframe, they are landlocked. They can't remove all of it and replace it with current aftermarket technology nor can they upgrade their G1000s. I haven't heard one of them say they want it for free. They just want it.

We're not talking about an old F here, we're talking about a plane that is less than 10 years old and that these guys spent a ton of AMUs buying. I feel for them.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PaulM]

We early GX/STEC owners are not singled out in our upgrade woes.  

There have been no updates to the software since 401.30 in 2008.
http://www.mooney.com/en/sb/M20-307B.pdf

 No Mooney (other than the new ones coming off the factory line) has the 401.34 software.  Therefore no 2005-2008 plane can update to the GTX33ES and have ADSB-out for 2020.  Or data logging, the new menus or any other feature since 2008. 

Lets face it, the software is developed by Garmin (and already done)  and then customized by Mooney and Garmin.  We have gone over that Garmin owns the STC.. but that software releases + configurations are certified by the OEM via a SB  (as above).

This is all a question of certification, and we don't know the details of the private agreements of G1000 developers on the levels of testing, hardware combo's etc that would make this a problem.   

If you have looked at the G1000 system maintenance manual, the key long term problem with G1000 (and all integrated avionics in general) is that if the Vendor/OEM hasn't designed it to happen + released the config for your individual airplane configuration, it doesn't happen.   You can't add a TAS unit and just tell the G1000 that ARINC#4 is a TAS in feed.  The config must have a selection for the Sky 497. 

From a technology perspective, we know the GIA63W's work, and  I will bet that If you plugged them in today they would run.  Same with the GTX33ES.  Garmin only writes 1 or 2 versions of the G1000 software.. the magic is in the airframe config files that say.. RS232#4 is a GTX33 software version 5.23 etc. 

Why is the certification delay (for at least the WAAS/GFC700 units) so long for 401.34?   I don't know and Mooney isn't talking.   It does seem odd for a business that will make hardware replacements and support airframes for 50 years to delay software updates that are now as essential as any other part of the aircraft. 

You can see the incredible problems (error) of this system with the GDL88.   Garmin's latest and greatest G1000 systems won't talk to it, (i.e. no plane under 10 years old)   but you can have full integration with your 20 year old GTN system. 

[Danb]

3 hours ago, PaulM said:

We early GX/STEC owners are not singled out in our upgrade woes.  

There have been no updates to the software since 401.30 in 2008.
http://www.mooney.com/en/sb/M20-307B.pdf

 No Mooney (other than the new ones coming off the factory line) has the 401.34 software.  Therefore no 2005-2008 plane can update to the GTX33ES and have ADSB-out for 2020.  Or data logging, the new menus or any other feature since 2008. 

Lets face it, the software is developed by Garmin (and already done)  and then customized by Mooney and Garmin.  We have gone over that Garmin owns the STC.. but that software releases + configurations are certified by the OEM via a SB  (as above).

This is all a question of certification, and we don't know the details of the private agreements of G1000 developers on the levels of testing, hardware combo's etc that would make this a problem.   

If you have looked at the G1000 system maintenance manual, the key long term problem with G1000 (and all integrated avionics in general) is that if the Vendor/OEM hasn't designed it to happen + released the config for your individual airplane configuration, it doesn't happen.   You can't add a TAS unit and just tell the G1000 that ARINC#4 is a TAS in feed.  The config must have a selection for the Sky 497. 

From a technology perspective, we know the GIA63W's work, and  I will bet that If you plugged them in today they would run.  Same with the GTX33ES.  Garmin only writes 1 or 2 versions of the G1000 software.. the magic is in the airframe config files that say.. RS232#4 is a GTX33 software version 5.23 etc. 

Why is the certification delay (for at least the WAAS/GFC700 units) so long for 401.34?   I don't know and Mooney isn't talking.   It does seem odd for a business that will make hardware replacements and support airframes for 50 years to delay software updates that are now as essential as any other part of the aircraft. 

You can see the incredible problems (error) of this system with the GDL88.   Garmin's latest and greatest G1000 systems won't talk to it, (i.e. no plane under 10 years old)   but you can have full integration with your 20 year old GTN system. 

Paul. Correct and that Sucks!

[Txbyker]

I guess you need to go back to the launch of the GX line.  Garmin pushes the OEMs to ship product with G1000.  About the same time the FAA mandates WAAS.  Someone, somewhere decided to push a lot of planes out with STEC when Garmin has yet to launch the GFC700.  Not a whole lot of G1000/STECs ship before the configuration of G1000/GFC becomes the WAAS solution.  Did Mooney/Garmin have the new GFC config in testing while continuing to sell STEC with the WAAS mandate in place?  I have been trying to figure this out.

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, Txbyker said:

I guess you need to go back to the launch of the GX line.  Garmin pushes the OEMs to ship product with G1000.  About the same time the FAA mandates WAAS.  Someone, somewhere decided to push a lot of planes out with STEC when Garmin has yet to launch the GFC700.  Not a whole lot of G1000/STECs ship before the configuration of G1000/GFC becomes the WAAS solution.  Did Mooney/Garmin have the new GFC config in testing while continuing to sell STEC with the WAAS mandate in place?  I have been trying to figure this out.

Mooney wanted to be the first with the G1000 and didn't wait for the GFC700 Autopilot. Instead they went with the S-Turn, I mean S-Tec.

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2005/February/1/Mooney-Gets-Glass

Edited January 3, 2016 by LANCECASPER

[OR75]

9 hours ago, Marauder said:

It's more than the ADS-B piece. Having seen Dan's plane up close, you can understand the frustration of laying out that kind of money and not being able to take advantage of the current GPS technology available. Since the G1000 is an integrated solution with the airframe, they are landlocked. They can't remove all of it and replace it with current aftermarket technology nor can they upgrade their G1000s. I haven't heard one of them say they want it for free. They just want it.

We're not talking about an old F here, we're talking about a plane that is less than 10 years old and that these guys spent a ton of AMUs buying. I feel for them.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks for the clarification. It does not sound like there was any commitment from Mooney to do an upgrade. 

I understand the desire to be able to integrate ads-b . On the other hand , there is nothing that will keep those aircraft grounded. 

Unfortunate to see but I expect these type of things to happen more and more in the future. 

Today's Avionics is closer to the Microsoft or Apple model with technology or products becoming unsupported relatively fast ( when compared to the life of an airframe ) . Is not it the case with the 28V GNS 430 ? 

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, OR75 said:

Thanks for the clarification. It does not sound like there was any commitment from Mooney to do an upgrade. 

I understand the desire to be able to integrate ads-b . On the other hand , there is nothing that will keep those aircraft grounded. 

Unfortunate to see but I expect these type of things to happen more and more in the future. 

Today's Avionics is closer to the Microsoft or Apple model with technology or products becoming unsupported relatively fast ( when compared to the life of an airframe ) . Is not it the case with the 28V GNS 430 ? 

Mooney has been making promises for a long time for a solution. No one is asking them to pay for it. These planes won't be grounded, but in less than 4 years without ADS-B they will be very limited.  I'm sure Garmin will provide a GDL-88 solution to Mooney and others for ADS-B compliance.

On Garmin's site under GDL-88 it says: 

Expand Your Options with Industry Support

The GDL 88 also supports some ADS-B “in” features on a wide range of other cockpit displays. That means you’ll see TIS-A traffic on G1000 integrated flight decks and some third-party navigators that support the published legacy GDL 90 protocol, as well as FIS-B NEXRAD radar and METAR weather.

[OR75]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

Mooney has been making promises for a long time for a solution. No one is asking them to pay for it. These planes won't be grounded, but in less than 4 years without ADS-B they will be very limited.  I'm sure Garmin will provide a GDL-88 solution to Mooney and others for ADS-B compliance.

On Garmin's site under GDL-88 it says: 

Expand Your Options with Industry Support

The GDL 88 also supports some ADS-B “in” features on a wide range of other cockpit displays. That means you’ll see TIS-A traffic on G1000 integrated flight decks and some third-party navigators that support the published legacy GDL 90 protocol, as well as FIS-B NEXRAD radar and METAR weather.

I still cannot understand why those aircrafts will be very limited when the ADS-B mandates kicks is. 

AdS-B in/out options exist independently of the G1000. Granted it may not be the most elegant / integrated .  I cited a few above like the L3 and those Navworks / Freeflight type boxes that have internal waas sensors . 

[LANCECASPER]

16 minutes ago, OR75 said:

I still cannot understand why those aircrafts will be very limited when the ADS-B mandates kicks is. 

AdS-B in/out options exist independently of the G1000. Granted it may not be the most elegant / integrated .  I cited a few above like the L3 and those Navworks / Freeflight type boxes that have internal waas sensors . 

Where would you find room for the L-3 on that panel?

[OR75]

10 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Where would you find room for the L-3 on that panel?

Good point. Then your option is the Freeflight or other similar boxes that can go on the instrument rack in the cone. It can be ads-b out only or ads-b in/out with wifi option for traffic and weather on an iPad .m

[Marauder]

10 hours ago, LANCECASPER said: Where would you find room for the L-3 on that panel?

Good point. Then your option is the Freeflight or other similar boxes that can go on the instrument rack in the cone. It can be ads-b out only or ads-b in/out with wifi option for traffic and weather on an iPad .m

Having seen these panels up close. There isn't a lot of extra real estate. A remote box would work to meet the compliance but I believe the trade-off is that nothing will be displayed on those G1000 panels. They would be relegated as you indicated; displaying the "in" on an iPad.

The other "want" I believe these guys are looking for is the WAAS capability. Ironic that my 40 year old Mooney is able to fly approaches that these newer planes can't.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[OR75]

9 hours ago, Marauder said:

Having seen these panels up close. There isn't a lot of extra real estate. A remote box would work to meet the compliance but I believe the trade-off is that nothing will be displayed on those G1000 panels. They would be relegated as you indicated; displaying the "in" on an iPad.

The other "want" I believe these guys are looking for is the WAAS capability. Ironic that my 40 year old Mooney is able to fly approaches that these newer planes can't.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Totally can see how owners would not like being left out of the LNAV/VNAV glide slope and lower minimums. 

I hope some solution will work out in the not too far horizon. I am not knowledgeable enough to know how much of an effort it is Garmin/Mooney. I am thinking it probably is not a 5 mn paper exercise   

I am sure Mooney need to prioritize what they need to work on to sustain the business. I am also guessing (and hoping) that making parts for the whole M20 alphabet fleet to keep all the planes airworthy is a higher priority than avionics integration. But what do I know ...

[PaulM]

The issue isn't just the WAAS/ADSB 2020 mandate.  That is just the part that has a deadline.  The real issue is the perception of orphanage and delay within the G1000 architecture.   Software updates are an essential part of keeping the G1000 avionics stack modern and usable.    Mooney has been shipping Acclaims for 18 months,  no software updates for the rest of us. 

This isn't just Mooney's problem.. Garmin's reputation and sales are also impacted.   Our state of the art avionics systems are locked into 8-10 year old systems.  No flight stream, no GDL88, etc.   Look throughout Garmin's SB database for software updates to XXX (Non-G1000). Each of these implies a software issue that has been updated to the general community, but that G1000 users are locked out of (until included in the OEM G1000 bundle) 

Think about your panel,  how would it feel to be told you can't update it for 8 years, plus no indication of when that will end. (9 years? 10?)  Avionics are the parts that pilots fiddle with the most.   If we didn't have iPad's + stratus/GDL39, bluetooth headsets, etc we would probably have gone crazy. 

Is this where we are going as an industry with modern aircraft?  You get what you buy new, forget about updates, or carefully pick a OEM based on their relationship with the avionics producer and have a track record of coordinated support?   Do we need to keep a timeline of how well Cirrus, Cessna, Beechcraft, Piper and others are working with G?   This is all new to the panel being integrated with the airworthiness certification.    Before you could kick King out of your stack, Narco, Garmin, Century. etc.. all kept each other in line.   I don't see any OEM going back to discrete components (other than at the bottom of the cost line). 

As for the ADSB add ons (even the GDL88), they are all UAT only solutions.. Which would keep our Bravo's out of Class A above 18K.   All 1090ES solutions are to update your transponder to ES.   Could we rip out the GTX33, and put in a hard wired something else?  perhaps, but the real solution is already there, it is being sold new today... GIA36W's with the GTX33ES + software update. 

[OR75]

3 hours ago, PaulM said:

The issue isn't just the WAAS/ADSB 2020 mandate.  That is just the part that has a deadline.  The real issue is the perception of orphanage and delay within the G1000 architecture.   Software updates are an essential part of keeping the G1000 avionics stack modern and usable.    Mooney has been shipping Acclaims for 18 months,  no software updates for the rest of us. 

This isn't just Mooney's problem.. Garmin's reputation and sales are also impacted.   Our state of the art avionics systems are locked into 8-10 year old systems.  No flight stream, no GDL88, etc.   Look throughout Garmin's SB database for software updates to XXX (Non-G1000). Each of these implies a software issue that has been updated to the general community, but that G1000 users are locked out of (until included in the OEM G1000 bundle) 

Think about your panel,  how would it feel to be told you can't update it for 8 years, plus no indication of when that will end. (9 years? 10?)  Avionics are the parts that pilots fiddle with the most.   If we didn't have iPad's + stratus/GDL39, bluetooth headsets, etc we would probably have gone crazy. 

Is this where we are going as an industry with modern aircraft?  You get what you buy new, forget about updates, or carefully pick a OEM based on their relationship with the avionics producer and have a track record of coordinated support?   Do we need to keep a timeline of how well Cirrus, Cessna, Beechcraft, Piper and others are working with G?   This is all new to the panel being integrated with the airworthiness certification.    Before you could kick King out of your stack, Narco, Garmin, Century. etc.. all kept each other in line.   I don't see any OEM going back to discrete components (other than at the bottom of the cost line). 

As for the ADSB add ons (even the GDL88), they are all UAT only solutions.. Which would keep our Bravo's out of Class A above 18K.   All 1090ES solutions are to update your transponder to ES.   Could we rip out the GTX33, and put in a hard wired something else?  perhaps, but the real solution is already there, it is being sold new today... GIA36W's with the GTX33ES + software update. 

1090ES to be able to fly above 18k: freeflight have a box for that. It sounds like I am advocating for them but I am not, just pointing to an option. Check out their website for a 1090ES option.

"Is  this were we are going as an industry with modern aircraft ?" I am afraid the answer is probably yes.  Modern avionics and integration are great. But vulnerability is greater and we are at the mercy of suppliers not supporting their products relatively quickly compared to what we are used and to the lifespan of an airframe - again modern avionics business model is closer to Apple and Microsoft.    

 

  

[Deb]

We received this update from Tom Bowen (COO of Mooney) on the STEC non-WAAS G1000 project:

I wish I had better news other than the last half of 2015 was spent chasing our tails and the FAA on a large certification project. This precluded finishing our test platform and launching on the STEC55/VNAV/Garmin interface program that I promised you by 4th quarter.

The good news is by April the current project should be done and as it winds down I should get a dedicated crew on putting GJ back in the air. Garmin and Mooney still stand firmly behind getting it done but I overestimated our ability to get the current project done and the cooperation of the “New FAA”.

[Txbyker]

7 hours ago, Deb said:

We received this update from Tom Bowen (COO of Mooney) on the STEC non-WAAS G1000 project:

I wish I had better news other than the last half of 2015 was spent chasing our tails and the FAA on a large certification project. This precluded finishing our test platform and launching on the STEC55/VNAV/Garmin interface program that I promised you by 4th quarter.

The good news is by April the current project should be done and as it winds down I should get a dedicated crew on putting GJ back in the air. Garmin and Mooney still stand firmly behind getting it done but I overestimated our ability to get the current project done and the cooperation of the “New FAA”.

Thanks David!  Appreciate the update.

Russ

[Cruiser]

reading this thread makes me glad I have an "old" technology panel. 

Is it possible to gut the panel and replace it with a 3-screen Aspen and a full Avidyne stack? 

I would think you could do it for around $50k (AMUs) and be finished before Mooney gets back to work on the project.

[Jeff_S]

We appreciate those people who "feel" for our situation. It is a bit frustrating, but I for one believe fully that the problem will be solved. And in the meantime, the G1000 system remains a totally bitchin' way to fly. As to ripping out the panel, that's a non-starter because the GX models were type certified based on the G1000 system. So if you do that, you're flying an experimental. And it would cost a lot of money. So if you felt that strongly about it, you're better off just unloading your old plane and picking up a newer one that has the GFC700 and WAAS. And even these don't have ADS-B unless they're brand new. (Actually, I'm not even sure the new ones have that...do they?)

[Txbyker]

I came across a section on Mooney's website about STEC.  Is this new?  Last one under technical faqs.

http://www.mooney.com/en/FAQ.html

Russ

[Marauder]

I came across a section on Mooney's website about STEC.  Is this new?  Last one under technical faqs.

http://www.mooney.com/en/FAQ.html

Russ

Nice how they didn't provide the year for the 2nd quarter.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk