Backup AI?

[Godfather]

  On 3/15/2016 at 9:02 PM, donkaye said:

Of course you are right regarding the certified Nav.  I was referring to a Nav indicator, a second one of which I didn't have prior to the ESI 500.  The GPS is not really in my field of view for secondary Nav.  The ESI 500 is.

Regarding cost, yes, it is a few $ more, but the Nav function is only about an additional $600.  The SVT is more but was worth it to me.  The support from L3 is excellent.  Our questions were immediately answered.

One other thing is really nice about the SVT.  The terrain awareness color shading warning is much, much better than that the G500.  As I came into San Jose yesterday over the foothills, the shading went to yellow with red in the distance, while nothing showed on the G500.

Expand  

Don do you have an updated full panel picture you could post.  I'd like to know what other backup instruments you have and how you arranged them.  I'm starting to think the g500 / ESI 500 might be a good way to go.  

[aviatoreb]

  On 3/15/2016 at 9:02 PM, donkaye said:

Of course you are right regarding the certified Nav.  I was referring to a Nav indicator, a second one of which I didn't have prior to the ESI 500.  The GPS is not really in my field of view for secondary Nav.  The ESI 500 is.

Regarding cost, yes, it is a few $ more, but the Nav function is only about an additional $600.  The SVT is more but was worth it to me.  The support from L3 is excellent.  Our questions were immediately answered.

One other thing is really nice about the SVT.  The terrain awareness color shading warning is much, much better than that the G500.  As I came into San Jose yesterday over the foothills, the shading went to yellow with red in the distance, while nothing showed on the G500.

Expand  

Wow - the ESI500 is beautiful.

I would love to see another video if you ever have it showing as you fly near terrain as you described above.  Of course you will need to be looking out the window too.

[donkaye]

So I changed a couple of things today on the display.  I felt the semi-transparent mask made the display seem smaller than it was, so I changed it to clear, and it does seem larger.  I also changed the color of the Baro to green to distinguish it from the white altitude tape.

I also took pictures of the terrain shading as I flew over the East Bay foothills to San Jose.  The obstacles on the ESI 500 are block icons.  The big antenna on top of the mountain shows up as Red.  You can compare the G500 with the ESI 500.  In this regard the ESI 500 displays better than its more expensive counter part.  I hit a bump just as I snapped the picture, so it is a little out of focus.

I also took picture of most of the panel.

I'm really pleased at how the ESI installation turned out.  Once again, I can thank Peter Casares of J and R Electronics in Livermore.  He did it all.

[StevenL757]

  On 3/13/2016 at 6:46 PM, donkaye said:

 

 

Then you'll want to see my latest upgrade that is supposed to be completed on Monday.  I'm replacing my backup ESI 2000 with the ESI 500.  Although a slightly smaller screen, it has Navigation (ILS/VOR/GPS/LPV) and SVT.  With the G500 I had no certified backup Navigation.  Now I will.

Expand  

Doing the same starting 4/30.  I understand you can only have only one nav source but wanted to know if there's some sort of switchover option that allows you to have access to VOR and GPS data, and switch as needed.  Do you happen to know if this option is available, or were you only allowed one nav option?

[carusoam]

The 90's switch over option was a complex switch that included a blue light to display when the GPS was the source and nothing when Nav 1 was the source.  Completely bridging the output of two different boxes.

Back then the blue light special was to indicate the nonstandard nature of GPS...

When I got the plane, the blue light was already burned out.  GPS must have been the PO's primary Nav source.  BK never saw what was coming...

Let me know if you guys need me to look up the single throw - gazillion pole switch I have.

Best regards,

-a-

[donkaye]

  On 3/27/2016 at 1:48 AM, StevenL757 said:

Doing the same starting 4/30.  I understand you can only have only one nav source but wanted to know if there's some sort of switchover option that allows you to have access to VOR and GPS data, and switch as needed.  Do you happen to know if this option is available, or were you only allowed one nav option?

Expand  

The ESI 500 can have one GPS AND one VOR/ILS, i.e. one of each.  The Menu on the ESI 500 allows you to switch between them.  I wanted to have both the GTN 750 and GTN 650 as sources, so I had a switch installed as part of the installation. 8 inputs 4 outputs. No lights; just labeled ESI 500 750 in one position and 650 in the other.  You can see it in the pictures.  It's the switch in the 2nd row on the right.  For simplicity I did not go with the Mag 500 independent heading source, opting for the 429 of the G500.  I recognize that that reduces the redundancy.   At some point I might added it.  I like that there is no difference in heading indication.  I have previously posted pictures and videos of it in operation.

[Mooney in Oz]

G'day there Don and greetings from Australia. I hope all is well with you.

Your panel looks even better with the addition of the ESI 500. I've been hoping to see one of these fitted in a Mooney and it looks great.

Congratulations and well done 

Victor

 

 

Edited March 27, 2016 by Mooney in Oz

[StevenL757]

Don, appreciate the details.  I'll pass on to my avionics guys.

[donkaye]

  On 3/27/2016 at 12:53 PM, Mooney in Oz said:

G'day there Don and greetings from Australia. I hope all is well with you.

Your panel looks even better with the addition of the ESI 500. I've been hoping to see one of these fitted in a Mooney and it looks great.

Congratulations and well done 

Victor

 

 

Expand  

Victor, thanks for the comments!  I can't believe it's been 8 years since the Down Under Tour.  What a great time we all had!  Have you done any upgrading you your J?

[Mooney in Oz]

Yes Don, it was great and a true privilege.

I have an Aspen PFD, Avidyne IFD540, AXP340 txpdr, AMX240 audio panel, GMX200 MFD with JeppView, TAS600 (soon to be 605A), GNS480 (one day will be an IFD440), altitude capture ability, Stec 55x and WX500.

I'll PM you a photo of the panel.  It does not look as good as yours.

Say hi to Shirley and Clarky from me.

 

[peter]

  On 3/27/2016 at 2:20 AM, donkaye said:

The ESI 500 can have one GPS AND one VOR/ILS, i.e. one of each.  The Menu on the ESI 500 allows you to switch between them.  I wanted to have both the GTN 750 and GTN 650 as sources, so I had a switch installed as part of the installation. 8 inputs 4 outputs. No lights; just labeled ESI 500 750 in one position and 650 in the other.  You can see it in the pictures.  It's the switch in the 2nd row on the right.  For simplicity I did not go with the Mag 500 independent heading source, opting for the 429 of the G500.  I recognize that that reduces the redundancy.   At some point I might added it.  I like that there is no difference in heading indication.  I have previously posted pictures and videos of it in operation.

Expand  

It's more likely that the switch controls a relay (or two) that provides the switching of the 8 inputs and 4 outputs, so there are 12 discrete points of failure in the wiring (e.g. broken wire, cold solder joint, etc) that would interfere with Don's ability to get nav data on the ESI 500, plus two additional points of failure for relay power and relay control assuming a single relay, plus two more points of failure on the switch, plus one more point of failure on switch ground, plus potential internal failures in the switch or the relay.  Understood that the switch allows the backup to be connected to either nav source, so if one fails the other is available to the backup display. The probability of failure of the GPS Nav/Com (very low) would need to be contrasted against the probability of failure of the switch/relay and its wire connections (moderate), to determine if the switched architecture is more/less reliable than a hardwired configuration. 

My experience is that the hardwired configuration will have a lower failure probability, so would be preferred for a backup application.  The more complex the architecture, the more switches and relays, or the more LRUs can all increase the probability of experiencing the failure per flight hour simply because there are more things that can break.

In Don's case, unless there is an emergency power source to the GPS Nav/Coms it will all be moot since when he experiences a complete electrical failure (a remote, but non-zero possibility) neither of the two GPS Nav/Coms will have power, so there will be no navigation inputs to the ESI500 and so he will loose CDI nav inputs and SVS on it as well (no GPS/VOR/ILS). 

At that point he would be flying a basic three in one attitude indicator and likely using his iPad or portable GPS for emergency navigation.  That's the worst case, single point failure scenario and so the one that should be practiced for partial panel proficiency.

Edited April 6, 2016 by peter
correct typo

[donkaye]

  On 4/6/2016 at 3:21 PM, peter said:

It's more likely that the switch controls a relay (or two) that provides the switching of the 8 inputs and 4 outputs, so there are 12 discrete points of failure in the wiring (e.g. broken wire, cold solder joint, etc) that would interfere with Don's ability to get nav data on the ESI 500, plus two additional points of failure for relay power and relay control assuming a single relay, plus two more points of failure on the switch, plus one more point of failure on switch ground, plus potential internal failures in the switch or the relay.  Understood that the switch allows the backup to be connected to either nav source, so if one fails the other is available to the backup display. The probability of failure of the GPS Nav/Com (very low) would need to be contrasted against the probability of failure of the switch/relay and its wire connections (moderate), to determine if the switched architecture is more/less reliable than a hardwired configuration. 

My experience is that the hardwired configuration will have a lower failure probability, so would be preferred for a backup application.  The more complex the architecture, the more switches and relays, or the more LRUs can all increase the probability of experiencing the failure per flight hour simply because there are more things that can break.

In Don's case, unless there is an emergency power source to the GPS Nav/Coms it will all be moot since when he experiences a complete electrical failure (a remote, but non-zero possibility) neither of the two GPS Nav/Coms will have power, so there will be no navigation inputs to the ESI500 and so he will loose CDI nav inputs and SVS on it as well (no GPS/VOR/ILS). 

At that point he would be flying a basic three in one attitude indicator and likely using his iPad or portable GPS for emergency navigation.  That's the worst case, single point failure scenario and so the one that should be practiced for partial panel proficiency.

Expand  

Well that would be depressing to anyone reading Peter's analysis.  However, there is no reason for a relay for these signals and there isn't one, so all those points of failure are out the window.  Any switch is a point of failure.  Any wire in a complex system such as mine is a point of failure.  I simply have a switch that switches both GPSs and I'm happy to have it.  Cold solder joint? Not with this installer.  The purpose of the backup is to protect against PFD failure of the G500 screen.  In the unlikely event of total electrical failure (I have dual alternators and dual batteries) I have the ESI 500, Aera 796, and iPad all independently battery powered.

[peter]

Ok, since there is no relay the potential for failures in 5 of the wire connections, and in the relay, goes away.  But, there are still 12 wire connections to the 4 pole double throw switch that remain, and 4 potential points of internal switch failures. 

Agreed that the odds of this failing at the same time as the G500 is remote, and agreed that your dual power architecture is very good mitigation against total power failures, and agreed that having the backup able to connect to either GPS in the event of a G500 failure is a good redundancy choice. 

My point, which I guess I didn't make very well, is that these redundancy choices can have an impact on reliability, especially down the road as the wiring ages and the solder joints have gone through countless thermal cycles.  Significant ?  Probably not.  Measurable?  Probably so.  Look at your electrical system as an example. I'm guessing you go through twice as many alternator failures and battery replacements as I do on my 231.  You are also twice as likely to not experience a full electrical generation or power failure in flight as I am.  Redundancy and reliability tend to have an inverse relationship.

No worries though, Garmin will probably "fix" all this wiring and mechanical switch nonsenses with their next gen G700 wireless avionics architecture that seamlessly connects all onboard avionics systems using a proprietary, encrypted 802.11n dual band link, which can be controlled by a multifunction touchpad controller from Apple.        

Cheers!

Edited April 6, 2016 by peter
wordsmithing

[Mooney_Allegro]

Don K,

Your panel looks beautiful!  Thanks for posting your photos.  Presently I am using a KI-256 as backup for my G600.  I would like to replace the KI-256 with the L3 ESI-500 like you've done.    My avionics shop is telling me that I'll need an FAA field approval to install the ESI-500, since it's not listed on the Garmin approval list as a backup for the G600.  Is this how your install got certified, with an FAA Field Approval?  Also, do you plan on continuously updating the ESI-500 databases for SVT, Obstacle, Terrain, or just keep the databases current on your G500, GTN650/750?  Personally I'd update the ESI-500 once, and use the others for currency to save an extra expense.

Thank you,

David

[donkaye]

Hi Dave,

Mine was approved with a logbook entry.  The ESI 500 doesn't need Garmin's approval, although it will probably be approved by them soon.  It is approved as a backup by L-3, and has an approved AML STC that includes our Mooneys.  https://www.l-3avionics.com/news/press-releases/031016PR

The database updates are relatively cheap by database standards.  The Terrain database is updated at most once per year for $105/yr, and the NAV database monthly for $265/yr.  I bought the package.

 

 

[Mooney_Allegro]

Thanks Don!  Have you found a reference that says the ESI-500 is a legal backup to the G500/G600?  My avionics shop is insisting that the ESI-500 needs a field approval.  Other avionics shops disagree, including L3 themselves.  Is there a way to view the AML STC from L3?  I can't seem to find it written anywhere online.

 

[donkaye]

  On 4/19/2016 at 5:03 AM, Mooney_Allegro said:

Thanks Don!  Have you found a reference that says the ESI-500 is a legal backup to the G500/G600?  My avionics shop is insisting that the ESI-500 needs a field approval.  Other avionics shops disagree, including L3 themselves.  Is there a way to view the AML STC from L3?  I can't seem to find it written anywhere online.

 

Expand  

Sorry, but you won't find a reference.  A certified backup is a certified backup, and the ESI 500 is a certified backup.  I don't have the AML, and unlike Garmin with their STCs, L-3 hasn't published it.  You should contact Jim Keeth at L-3.  He has been super helpful to us and very responsive.  His email address is: Jim.Keeth@L-3com.com and phone number is: (616)285-4436 Office.

My installer installed it in 2 ½ days due to the extra complexity I added to the job with a transition from ESI 2000 and the extra switch to switch between the GTN 750 and 650.  I was really fortunate to have a student who owns a machine shop and who fabricated the interface module shown below.  The outer dimension was the ESI 2000 and the inset inner dimension the ESI 500.  So the width of the ESI 500 is slightly smaller than the ESI 2000.

BTW the large knob on the ESI 500 has the best tactile feel of any avionics knob I've ever had.  Setting the barometric pressure and moving between menu items with it requires almost no pressure.

[Mooney_Allegro]

I agree it's a certified backup & wish my avionics shop would agree.   I'll contact Mr. Keeth this week to see if he can talk to my avionics shop to get this resolved.  Thanks for your assistance, and again your set up looks great!  

[PTK]

  On 4/19/2016 at 5:38 AM, donkaye said:

...Sorry, but you won't find a reference.  A certified backup is a certified backup, and the ESI 500 is a certified backup...

Expand  

Certified by whom? Has Garmin certified it? In order to be a certified backup for the G500 Garmin has to certify it and reference it in their STC for the G500. It has to be in the Garmin STC. It's irrelevent what L3 publishes. Garmin has to have it in their STC for the G500 and I don't know if they do. 

Another example is the Mid continent MD302. It is not listed in the G500 STC and therefore not a certified backup for it.

[Godfather]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I  thought the esi500 was certified as a primary device under the new faa ruling.  Can't imagine it would not work as a backup for the AI portion...not sure about the airspeed and altitude because I've never researched that aspect.

[donkaye]

  On 4/19/2016 at 10:22 AM, PTK said:

Certified by whom? Has Garmin certified it? In order to be a certified backup for the G500 Garmin has to certify it and reference it in their STC for the G500. It has to be in the Garmin STC. It's irrelevent what L3 publishes. Garmin has to have it in their STC for the G500 and I don't know if they do. 

Another example is the Mid continent MD302. It is not listed in the G500 STC and therefore not a certified backup for it.

Expand  

Luckily, my shop who's been in business over 40 years doesn't go along with that interpretation, although, if they thought a field approval was necessary, they could have gotten one.  The L-3 ESI 2000 had previously occupied the same location.

[JKeeth]

Hi Guys,

Sorry for being late to the party!

The ESI-500 can absolutely be installed as a standby to the G500 system, and it has been done multiple times by multiple dealers in the past few months. While the G500 STC doesn't specifically include the ESI-500 as an allowable standby solution, the G500 STC does state that "It is permissible...to seek approval for installation and operational use of the G500 with systems not identified in this manual" by means of a TC, STC, or Field Approval. Therefore, the installer simply uses our ESI-500 STC as the approved data to sign-off the installation of the ESI-500, while they use the G500 STC to sign-off the installation of the G500 system. No additional approval, i.e. Field Approval, is needed to install the ESI-500 with the G500 system. Ironically, the airplane that was used for the ESI-500 AML STC contains a G500 system.

That being said, I believe Garmin will eventually add the ESI-500 to their STC as a convenience to the dealers and installers, much like they did when they added the ESI-2000 to the G500 STC a few years ago.

Regarding the question about the ESI-500 being certified as a primary as per the new FAA ruling...yes, the ESI-500 can be installed as a primary. There really is no differentiation between a primary and secondary certified ESIS unit like our ESI-500, as the ESI-500 has been certified to the same TSOs as a primary ADAHRS system. We have marketed the ESI-500 as a standby system, and our STC allows someone to install the ESI-500 as a standby solution only. With the new FAA ruling, the ESI-500 can be installed as a primary attitude-indicator to replace an existing vacuum driven AI, and this could be done as a Field Approval only, but I believe the intent of the ruling is to allow this as a minor modification, which would not require a Field Approval. Currently, nobody has tested this new FAA policy with the ESI-500, but next month we are planning to put this policy to test by installing the ESI-500 in place of the vacuum driven AI in our club plane, which is a 172R. Keep in mind that this new ruling allows for the replacement of the AI only with an electronic device like the ESI-500; it does not allow for the replacement of the airspeed, altitude, and VSI instruments also.

Hope this helps. Please don't hesitate to contact me if anyone has any additional questions or concerns.

Jim Keeth

L-3 Avionics Systems

jim.keeth@l-3com.com

[carusoam]

Great product support Jim K.

Thanks for lending a connection between L3 and the Mooney community.  Glad you are here.

Best regards,

-a-

[carqwik]

Jim -

Thanks for participating.  I am assuming though the ESI 500 will not provide inputs to a King autopilot?  Is that correct?  Any upgrades coming in the unit that might allow that to happen (especially since we're still waiting on the King KI 300)....?

[Rmag]

  On 4/19/2016 at 5:38 AM, donkaye said:

Sorry, but you won't find a reference.  A certified backup is a certified backup, and the ESI 500 is a certified backup.  I don't have the AML, and unlike Garmin with their STCs, L-3 hasn't published it...

Expand  

You can go to FAA.gov and look up L-3's STC to get the AML.  Here is a link:  http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/a9ca2a921241475886257f690066d2e8/$FILE/SA04046CH_AML.pdf

For Mooney's they have:  

M20, M20A, M20B, M20C, M20D, M20E, M20F, M20G, M20J, M20K, M20L, M20M, M20R, M20S, M20TN