TruTrak Autopilot Pre Order's / Status Update

[LANCECASPER]

14 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

That's true - 

But honestly I bet the GPS system infrastructure is more reliable than my KFC200.  

The GPS infrastructure is extremely reliable but it's amazing how many GPS outages there are due to testing and exercises across the country. Here's the list for this week: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/gps/gpsnotices/GPS_Interference.pdf

This list wouldn't affect doing a coupled VOR or ILS approach on any other approved autopilot. My original point almost a year ago was that the FAA may have been asleep on this one and probably isn't even aware of it due to the in-house approvals at Garmin. Many GFC500 owners aren't even aware of it. No one that I've talked to in person who had one installed even knew about it. If there was an accident that hit the news where this was in any way a contributing factor, Garmin's in house approvals would be under a lot of scrutiny. I read on Beechtalk questions from owners who've just had complete panel upgrades and by the questions they pose, additional training should be required when they are upgrading their panels from the 70's to 2020 technology.

My airplane was supposed to be the one Garmin used to certify the GFC500 for the M20M. Once I found out about this limitation I opted out and they went with the next person in line. If a future update eliminates this limitation I would consider a GFC500. I would consider a GFC600 right now if they certified it for the M20M. I've offered my airplane for them to use if they decide to add the long body Mooneys to the GFC600 AML.

[drapo]

8 hours ago, whiskytango said:

BK claims that the FAA has all the necessary paperwork for the Mooney STC, and it's the FAA's fault that the STC has not been issued (funny how Big G never has these problems.  Did BK annoy some folks at FAA at some point in the past, and now they go to the end of the line?).   

Very frustrating.

Sorry to mention it, but BK is not the only one being delayed by the FAA process, Garmin has the same certification delays for the 1965 and younger M20 C,D,E, F and G!

[carusoam]

Earlier... older....   

-a-

[donkaye]

51 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

The GPS infrastructure is extremely reliable but it's amazing how many GPS outages there are due to testing and exercises across the country. Here's the list for this week: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/gps/gpsnotices/GPS_Interference.pdf

This list wouldn't affect doing a coupled VOR or ILS approach on any other approved autopilot. My original point almost a year ago was that the FAA may have been asleep on this one and probably isn't even aware of it due to the in-house approvals at Garmin. Many GFC500 owners aren't even aware of it. No one that I've talked to in person who had one installed even knew about it. If there was an accident that hit the news where this was in any way a contributing factor, Garmin's in house approvals would be under a lot of scrutiny. I read on Beechtalk questions from owners who've just had complete panel upgrades and by the questions they pose, additional training should be required when they are upgrading their panels from the 70's to 2020 technology.

My airplane was supposed to be the one Garmin used to certify the GFC500 for the M20M. Once I found out about this limitation I opted out and they went with the next person in line. If a future update eliminates this limitation I would consider a GFC500. I would consider a GFC600 right now if they certified it for the M20M. I've offered my airplane for them to use if they decide to add the long body Mooneys to the GFC600 AML.

How often do you really think this would be a problem?  How about rarely, if ever.  I've had my GFC 500 for over a year now and never once had an issue with an ILS.  This is like always flying a high final requiring a high descent rate because you're afraid of losing your engine, then more often screwing up the flare because of the unstable approach.   It defies common sense.  You missed out on a free install and a great autopilot.  Did I know of the issue when I had mine installed?  Yes, and I couldn't wait to have it installed.  I haven't been sorry in the least.

[Davidv]

I’m currently getting a GFC500 installed to replace my KAP150.  So you’re saying the worst that could happen in a GPS outage is that I would have to hand fly an ILS? I think I’ll take my chances given the reliability of my KAP150. It’s another reason to make sure you’re current on hand flying approaches. 
 

While I do understand why people would be upset at this limitation, we aren’t professionally flying a jet with 150 people in the back on an airline timetable. If you feel uncomfortable hand flying an ILS to mins, I wouldn’t plan on flying in that weather.

[aviatoreb]

Does the failure mode of the GFC500 upon loss of gps during a coupled ILS approach require hand flying?  Or can it still fly in autopilot mode but simply on heading, not coupled?

[aviatoreb]

10 hours ago, donkaye said:

How often do you really think this would be a problem?  How about rarely, if ever.  I've had my GFC 500 for over a year now and never once had an issue with an ILS.  This is like always flying a high final requiring a high descent rate because you're afraid of losing your engine, then more often screwing up the flare because of the unstable approach.   It defies common sense.  You missed out on a free install and a great autopilot.  Did I know of the issue when I had mine installed?  Yes, and I couldn't wait to have it installed.  I haven't been sorry in the least.

I agree with your assessment Don.  You said what I had said, but you said it more clearly.

[LANCECASPER]

9 hours ago, donkaye said:

How often do you really think this would be a problem?  How about rarely, if ever.  I've had my GFC 500 for over a year now and never once had an issue with an ILS.  This is like always flying a high final requiring a high descent rate because you're afraid of losing your engine, then more often screwing up the flare because of the unstable approach.   It defies common sense.  You missed out on a free install and a great autopilot.  Did I know of the issue when I had mine installed?  Yes, and I couldn't wait to have it installed.  I haven't been sorry in the least.

It wouldn't have been free - they would have had the airplane 6 months or more. The more I thought about it, it didn't seem like the deal it appeared to be. I decided to let others work out the inevitable teething challenges with any new product. 

My KFC150 still flies on rails with GPSS. I might have felt differently if I was having all of the problems you were with your KFC150. (I still wonder if most of the problems you were having weren't airframe problems since you still had the rocking after the GFC500, until someone thought to lubricate the control shafts.) Someday mine will need attention and replacement but I wasn't willing to accept that limitation when I didn't have to. If I decide that the GFC500 is the best choice when that day comes then that's what I'll choose.

29 minutes ago, Davidv said:

I’m currently getting a GFC500 installed to replace my KAP150.  So you’re saying the worst that could happen in a GPS outage is that I would have to hand fly an ILS? I think I’ll take my chances given the reliability of my KAP150. It’s another reason to make sure you’re current on hand flying approaches. 
 

While I do understand why people would be upset at this limitation, we aren’t professionally flying a jet with 150 people in the back on an airline timetable. If you feel uncomfortable hand flying an ILS to mins, I wouldn’t plan on flying in that weather.

David, I am current on hand flying approaches and, like you, can fly an approach with or without an autopilot. That wasn't the point. We all get to make informed choices on what we want to fly with, but inferring that others that don't like that limitation must be inferior pilots and can't hand fly an approach is a weak argument. Again, if my autopilot wasn't working well I'd look at all of my options and then make an informed choice. Since I don't have to make that choice yet, I'll wait and see what's available then. (I still think about pilots that are already in a high stress situation if they have lost their GPS signal in IMC and they aren't aware of that GFC500 limitation, and they keep trying to engage a coupled ILS approach and can't figure out why it won't work. Distraction can easily lead to destruction. Garmin certainly has the resources to produce training videos on this and make them available to owners but they haven't chosen to do so.)

Tying in with this topic, the point was that unlike other manufacturers (TruTrak (BK), Trio, Dynon) that are at the mercy of the understaffed FAA, Garmin gets these approvals through on schedule since they have in-house approvals. Since they do that, they were able to get that limitation through the system when no other autopilot that I know of has that limitation. To me, it is very doubtful that any other manufacturer could get that through the system, at least not without instrument panel placards, marketing disclaimers, etc. The other manufacturers are doing what they can with the resources they have and the huge backlog that the FAA currently has, which is undoubtedly frustrating for them and their waiting customers. 

Kudos to Garmin for working the system that's in place to get all of their products to the market, but with increased FAA scrutiny it remains to be seen how long that will last. It would be interesting to see how fast Garmin would be releasing these products if they had to jump through the hoops that the other manufacturers do.

Back to topic and here's hoping that new releases for these other companies come soon to promote competition in the marketplace. 

[Davidv]

Just now, LANCECASPER said:

It wouldn't have been free - they would have had the airplane 6 months or more. The more I thought about it, it didn't seem like the deal it appeared to be. I decided to let others work out the inevitable teething challenges with any new product. 

My KFC150 still flies on rails with GPSS. I might have felt differently if I was having all of the problems you were with your KFC150. (I still wonder if most of the problems you were having weren't airframe problems since you still had the rocking after the GFC500, until someone thought to lubricate the control shafts.) Someday mine will need attention and replacement but I wasn't willing to accept that limitation when I didn't have to. If I decide that the GFC500 is the best choice when that day comes then that's what I'll choose.

David, I am current on hand flying approaches and, like you, can fly an approach with or without an autopilot. That wasn't the point. We all get to make informed choices on what we want to fly with, but inferring that others that don't like that limitation must be inferior pilots and can't hand fly an approach is a weak argument. Again, if my autopilot wasn't working well I'd look at all of my options and then make an informed choice. Since I don't have to make that choice yet, I'll wait and see what's available then. (I still think about pilots that are already in a high stress situation if they have lost their GPS signal in IMC and they aren't aware of that GFC500 limitation, and they keep trying to engage a coupled ILS approach and can't figure out why it won't work. Distraction can easily lead to destruction. Garmin certainly has the resources to produce training videos on this and make them available to owners but they haven't chosen to do so.)

Tying in with this topic, the point was that unlike other manufacturers (TruTrak (BK), Trio, Dynon) that are at the mercy of the understaffed FAA, Garmin gets these approvals through on schedule since they have in-house approvals. Since they do that, they were able to get that limitation through the system when no other autopilot that I know of has that limitation. To me, it is very doubtful that any other manufacturer could get that through the system, at least not without instrument panel placards, marketing disclaimers, etc. The other manufacturers are doing what they can with the resources they have and the huge backlog that the FAA currently has, which is undoubtedly frustrating for them and their waiting customers. 

Kudos to Garmin for working the system that's in place to get all of their products to the market, but with increased FAA scrutiny it remains to be seen how long that will last. It would be interesting to see how fast Garmin would be releasing these products if they had to jump through the hoops that the other manufacturers do.

Back to topic and here's hoping that new releases for these other companies come soon to promote competition in the marketplace. 

Lance, Your point is valid and it's fair to point out his limitation with the GFC500.  It's all about the options for the specific aircraft being flown.  For me, I had a KAP150 that wasn't working great, so the GFC500 is a huge step up irrespective of this limitation.  In that instance, yes, I'll take the limitation of having to hand fly an ILS if I lose GPS signal.  I wasn't implying that you or anyone else doesn't have the ability to hand fly an ILS.

On your point of a high stress situation, I'd probably be even more inclined to hand fly the ILS rather than use the GFC500 even if it didn't have this limitation.  I don't know about you, but if I'm in IMC, on an ILS, and get a warning on my screen that satellite reception has been lost, I'd be less inclined to trust any of my Garmin technology at that point.  Yes, it's irrational because it's probably just the satellite coverage.  However, my wheels might be turning that it's some other issue behind that panel with my fully integrated autopilot and PFD.  At that point, I may feel more comfortable clicking off the A/P and flying the needles.

Again, would it be better if this limitation did not exist?  Sure, but then again I'm getting a full feature (ALT, HDG, IAS, VNAV, ect...) A/P installed for less than $20K.  Labor and parts for a GFC700 (even if you could buy one not OEM installed) is around double that cost.

[carusoam]

This is cool...

The VOR/ILS has been relegated to #2 status...

As long as we have two independent systems to find the ground in IMC...

I am OK with that...

Without WAAS, my only route down is the ILS... and I only have one...

Of course, my portable waas GPS acts like a nice backup too....

VORs have been going out of style for a decade...

Looks like big G is showing the same cards, from the other side of the table...

Best regards,

-a-

[kris_adams]

On 10/19/2020 at 7:59 PM, LANCECASPER said:

 lose the ability to fly a coupled ILS  or VOR approach if you lose GPS

what are those?  lol  I'm totally kidding...even though I haven't shot but two real world ILS's in 11 years.  (I have pretty high personal minimums and don't go out looking for bad weather on purpose and I fly out of many smaller airports w/o ILS anyway)

Edited October 21, 2020 by Kris_Adams

[McMooney]

On 9/2/2020 at 7:47 AM, philiplane said:

The Trio Pro Pilot is a rate-based autopilot, but unlike other designs that use a mechanical turn coordinator for roll input (S-TEC and BendixKing's KAP140), the Trio has self-contained solid-state inertial rate sensors.

Hmm, i was under the impression that most new Ahrs systems where rate based MEMS sensors

[Yetti]

Pay real estate taxes or buy more screens for the plane.  I hate Q4 decision making process.

[Sandman993]

Haha... we all going to be in nursing homes talking about tru trac approval someday soon. Doo doo on a stick.

[MBDiagMan]

On 10/19/2020 at 1:07 PM, gsxrpilot said:

I was involved in a start-up company that we sold in July this year. It was my experience that the investors and VC's on both sides were more interested in the "deal" and not whether it was a good fit, or even a viable product.

In my career I was involved with this two different times and both situations fit your description.

Furthermore, in my experience, once the VC laid out the cash, the founder was left in place until the first stumble, and sooner or later there is always a stumble, then the VC put in their own person or team that had no specific industry experience, and these were the ones that ran it into the ground.

[drapo]

You guys think that now that the B737Max certification is out of the way, they’ll find time to take care of GA suppliers requests ? 

[Sandman993]

1 minute ago, drapo said:

You guys think that now that the B737Max certification is out of the way, they’ll find time to take care of GA suppliers requests ? 

You really think the Boeing debacle has anything to do with our wimpy little autopilot?? That part of the FAA doesn’t even know trutrac exists. 

[Hank]

2 hours ago, Sandman993 said:

You really think the Boeing debacle has anything to do with our wimpy little autopilot?? That part of the FAA doesn’t even know trutrac exists. 

It apparently has lots to do with the huge GA insurance increases the last two years . . . . .

[Sandman993]

5 hours ago, Hank said:

It apparently has lots to do with the huge GA insurance increases the last two years . . . . .

Apparently, albeit I don’t know how the airlines insurance and Mooney insurance correlate to each other. My buddy is a 777 captain, he says those insurance companies are so far removed from each other, he’s at a loss to explain how that could be possible.

If I have it right, the low premiums and high ga loses caused a few insurance companies to stop writing ga insurance... that left a lag in the competition so whoever is left can go up and still hang onto their market share.

it is possible that the higher premiums may inspire those who stopped writing policies to reconsider and therefore we can stabilize or even slightly reverse the increases. Don’t look for that to happen until they have at least one more increase next year. Maybe another after that, time will tell.

 

[drapo]

5 hours ago, Sandman993 said:

You really think the Boeing debacle has anything to do with our wimpy little autopilot?? That part of the FAA doesn’t even know trutrac exists. 

I think they know pretty much everything about TruTrak/Aerocruze100 as they have certified it for Cessnas and Pipers... Same hardware, only difference will be positioning the servos and other simple stuff, but that shouldn't take more than a couple of weeks 

[ZuluZulu]

54 minutes ago, Sandman993 said:

who knows, Biden may tell us to stop flying altogether. You plebiscites are raining lead down on our babies... at least the ones we don’t abort.

Is this really necessary here?

[Sandman993]

43 minutes ago, ZuluZulu said:

Is this really necessary here?

Geez So Cal, sorry. Meant to be humorous... not to hurt your feelings.

[ZuluZulu]

56 minutes ago, Sandman993 said:

Geez So Cal, sorry. Meant to be humorous... not to hurt your feelings.

My name isn't So Cal, and I don't remember saying it hurt my feelings.  I'm only wondering what injecting a politician's imagined policies into the discussion has to do with Mooneys and autopilots.

[Missile=Awesome]

1 hour ago, ZuluZulu said:

My name isn't So Cal, and I don't remember saying it hurt my feelings.  I'm only wondering what injecting a politician's imagined policies into the discussion has to do with Mooneys and autopilots.

A lot actually, but whistle past the graveyard as if there is nothing to see and the P word will get you b.a.n.n.e.d around these here hills.  So your parents named you Zulu Zulu?  What’s up with dat?

[Missile=Awesome]

So just for ficks and dickles what if someone said they were going to eliminate fossil fuels by 2035?  Would that be relevant to general aviation? If he that shall not be named...lets call him Voldemort.  If Voldemort planned to get rid of fossil fuels would he likely raise the cost of 100 low lead significantly to appeal to pocket book sanity and rid the world of noisy, carbon and led burning rich people transportation?  Would that make the eco-friendly folks...lets call them Slytherin.  Would that make Slytherin happy?  Perhaps.  Perhaps it would.  Coming to a theater near Southern California sometime soon.  Stand by.  Bend over.  Enjoy a cleaner world.  Yeah!!!!!!!!