cliffy Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 I went fishing yesterday and caught fish! :-) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navi Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 Annnnd….. Another new wrinkle…. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My name is Trek Lawler and I'm the Supervisor of Garmin's Aviation Field Service Engineering team. I monitor different public forums and provide feedback and help to these members when they have problems such as this. Your thread was brought to my attention and I wanted to provide you some feedback. Actually Garmin's STC does call out the Navigators it is approved to interface with, in this case the GFC 500 requires an interface to a G5 or a G3X system utilizing the CAN buss, if you review these STC's closely you will see that the only GPS navigators we have as approved interfaces are the Garmin series of nav units. We've never tested or approved any third party GPS navigators for any of our STC's. This unfortunately is an oversight it sounds from the installer in this case to review and verify if this system was in fact approved in this configuration. As you have found out it appears the IFD series of units do not provide the height above terrain data that is necessary for the ESP function to work correctly. At this point since we do not have any plans for this integration I'd recommend that you contact your installer so they can try and work out a resolution so that you can have all of the functionality of the system. Piper forum July 13/2020 --------------------------------------------------------------- This may apply to some legacy Garmin navigators as well.. Any that do NOT send "Height above terrain" data mess up the under speed protection and we are not sure what else... :( DO DIG into the STC carefully and check for compatibility with your Navigator including older Garmins. This was discovered by a Piper pilot as he and his tech (with Garmin's help) were trying to figure our why the underspeed function did not work... Nobody at this time seems to be sure how the handshake works... Or sure why the height above terrain is significant. It's early… Apparently not all the Garmin people were aware of this... The conversation usually stops at "We do not support (whatever) " They require an "All Garmin" panel .. End of story... This is all third hand info, FWIW. The above statement however was posted by the named Garmin Rep. and is believed to be accurate.. N 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, Navi said: Annnnd….. Another new wrinkle…. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My name is Trek Lawler and I'm the Supervisor of Garmin's Aviation Field Service Engineering team. I monitor different public forums and provide feedback and help to these members when they have problems such as this. Your thread was brought to my attention and I wanted to provide you some feedback. Actually Garmin's STC does call out the Navigators it is approved to interface with, in this case the GFC 500 requires an interface to a G5 or a G3X system utilizing the CAN buss, if you review these STC's closely you will see that the only GPS navigators we have as approved interfaces are the Garmin series of nav units. We've never tested or approved any third party GPS navigators for any of our STC's. This unfortunately is an oversight it sounds from the installer in this case to review and verify if this system was in fact approved in this configuration. As you have found out it appears the IFD series of units do not provide the height above terrain data that is necessary for the ESP function to work correctly. At this point since we do not have any plans for this integration I'd recommend that you contact your installer so they can try and work out a resolution so that you can have all of the functionality of the system. Piper forum July 13/2020 --------------------------------------------------------------- This may apply to some legacy Garmin navigators as well.. Any that do NOT send "Height above terrain" data mess up the under speed protection and we are not sure what else... DO DIG into the STC carefully and check for compatibility with your Navigator including older Garmins. This was discovered by a Piper pilot as he and his tech (with Garmin's help) were trying to figure our why the underspeed function did not work... Nobody at this time seems to be sure how the handshake works... Or sure why the height above terrain is significant. It's early… Apparently not all the Garmin people were aware of this... The conversation usually stops at "We do not support (whatever) " They require an "All Garmin" panel .. End of story... This is all third hand info, FWIW. The above statement however was posted by the named Garmin Rep. and is believed to be accurate.. N I'm not a seasoned avionic installer but I would think (and I do) that the first item to check on an STC install is the comparability page of the STC. If its not on there then the STC ain't gonna work legally. Its item #1. Can this work with this legally? Its not a lost item that Garmin only likes Garmin. Where has this been lost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 13 minutes ago, cliffy said: Questions- Does any one have what might be called a real good estimate (not just a guess) of what the full installed price would be for the Garmin GFC 500 A/P in a Mooney with no other Garmin products on board? A cost for the most basic application- left right up down hold where you are altitude. Just the same basic capability as the TT unit, nothing more. No CAT III capability needed. All most of us need is just the basics for cross country travel. Secondly, I brought this up a while back but I'll do it again- I once "pushed" the FAA into doing their job by going through a specific office in the FAA because they were dragging their feet on a project. I got it done in a few weeks after a year and a half delay from them. Is there no way to do the same on a project like this ASSUMING BK is as interested in getting this done as all of us are - for the last 2 years? I can see no reason why BK would be so silent on the actual progress to just say "its in the hands of the FAA" when so much money is in the offing unless there is a back story. I'm sorry but this situation makes no sense at all. Even considering COVID This is business with lots of dollars (and reputation) on the line in a time of depressed industry. Even if it is the FAA, I'd be talking about what is happening and trying my DAMNEDEST through my elected representatives and the FAA (and letting the world know) to get something done IF IN FACT THE FAA IS THE ONLY ROAD BLOCK. I'll even include the AV-30 in this concern as its the same scenario but a different company. There is no need for either company to be so silent (either to the public or pushing the FAA) if there isn't another back story involved. This is not the certification of a new SST. Nor is it the recert of a failed airliner. Its only the expansion of an STC of an already certified appliance (TT A/P). Somebody is dragging their feet here because other companies seem to be getting the job done or at least talking about it. Something smells funny We have a couple of posters here who have tried to help (not knocking them in any way) but at some point one just has to say something smells fishy. What we need is a good aviation investigative journalist. I can't speak to the installed price, but I'm sure someone will have this information. The GFC 500 is a lot more than what you want but Garmin isn't taking the add-on approach that you see with the Century and STEC models. That said, a basic STEC 20 which is a single axis autopilot (no pitch control) is listed on Genesys's website with a $8000 MSRP. The starting price for the GFC 500 (two axis) is $7000 MSRP. Why would you go with a basic analog autopilot with old style servos while for less money, you get a full blown AP with digital servos? When I heard TT was purchased by BK, I cringed. Their issues with delivering products on time extend well beyond just the FAA certification process. A few years ago they tried to introduce their KSN 770 GPS unit, they were struggling to get the project completed. They ended up going to Aspen Avionics to have them build the GUI for the unit. I think their ability to produce a product on time is well noted. Remember the running joke about the KI-300? They said it would be introduced "next quarter". They left out which year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 3 minutes ago, Marauder said: I can't speak to the installed price, but I'm sure someone will have this information. The GFC 500 is a lot more than what you want but Garmin isn't taking the add-on approach that you see with the Century and STEC models. That said, a basic STEC 20 which is a single axis autopilot (no pitch control) is listed on Genesys's website with a $8000 MSRP. The starting price for the GFC 500 (two axis) is $7000 MSRP. Why would you go with a basic analog autopilot with old style servos while for less money, you get a full blown AP with digital servos? When I heard TT was purchased by BK, I cringed. Their issues with delivering products on time extend well beyond just the FAA certification process. A few years ago they tried to introduce their KSN 770 GPS unit, they were struggling to get the project completed. They ended up going to Aspen Avionics to have them build the GUI for the unit. I think their ability to produce a product on time is well noted. Remember the running joke about the KI-300? They said it would be introduced "next quarter". They left out which year. I agree completely about an STEC20 for 8k vs a GFC500 for 7k - although for both the real cost is how much is the fly away cost. Still, with the current and coming offerings, an STEC20 is past. I also cringed when BK bought TT. :-(. Yeah that KI300 joke has been - sad. I mean what - when they finally get it certified will it be so old tech that it will come with a free Atari Pong game built in? Or will they charge $250 to unlock that feature? But more so - I am not forgetting the fiasco of 2 years ago when BK had temporarily moved to block all 3rd party maintenance companies - like autopilot central etc, that not only repair/overhaul/fix our classic BK parts but usually do so with much better and more modern components so they are definitely better than they were when new. They tried to corner the repair market and put their backup shops bankrupt. That only lasted 2 months or so til backlash killed it. That killed BK for me taking them seriously so I would otherwise be curious/interested in the aerocruze 230 as a plausible option for its ease of drop in replacement. But I am instead suspicious of how much it will cost me in the long run of continuing to run BK servos. Also - it needs the KI300 - vaporware - I know we can buy KI300 today as a stand alone but it still doesn't interact with autopilots as I understand it. I honestly don't understand why BK couldn't make a drop in replacement for the kI256 at an excellent price. And digital brushless servos as drop in replacement for the old servos. Saving all the shop time of a complete autopilot R&R was a fantastic opportunity for them for their kajillion legacy autopilot owners to sell tons of modern product. Instead they not only abandon us, they taunt us and egg us on with the next quarter joke and relabeled 3rd party products that look nice on old avweb videos but they don't really exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navi Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) On 7/16/2020 at 11:08 AM, cliffy said: I'm not a seasoned avionic installer but I would think (and I do) that the first item to check on an STC install is the comparability page of the STC. If its not on there then the STC ain't gonna work legally. Its item #1. Can this work with this legally? Its not a lost item that Garmin only likes Garmin. Where has this been lost? Ya... What is the "rumble", is that it is becoming apparent that all GFC installs are only allowed to be completed by "Garmin Certified Dealers/Installers" and many have been installed with Navigators that are (now found to be) not compatible. But the "incompatibility" is not with the AP, it's with that G5. The G5 is not shipped with the AP! But the G5 IS REQUIRED for the GFC 500 to work at all. ONLY Garmin installers! Ya.... Disclaimer...I have not seen the Documents.. 3rd party info. Does anyone here have access to the GFC Install manual? But the issue seems to be with the G5, NOT the GFC 500.. AND the test flights are not picking up the issue because (I am told) THE UNDERSPEED FUNCTION US USUALLY NOT TESTED. (?) One test flight involved the AP "directing the plane just fine and an "accurate coupled approach".. and signed off... N Edited July 20, 2020 by Navi typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob - S50 Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 34 minutes ago, Navi said: Or sure why the height above terrain is significant. It's early… The low speed protection part of the ESP system uses that info. If you allow your speed to get below a speed that is aircraft model dependent AND your altitude is MORE than 200' AGL, the pitch servo will apply nose down force to keep you from getting slower. You don't want the servos doing that while you are flaring to land. It's in the AFMS. For the M20J the speeds are 65 KIAS with the autopilot OFF and 69 KIAS with the autopilot ON. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob - S50 Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 8 minutes ago, Navi said: Ya... What is the "rumble", is that it is becoming apparent that all GFC installs are only allowed to be completed by "Garmin Certified Dealers/Installers" and many have been installed with Navigators that are (now found to be) not compatible. But the "incompatibility" is not with the AP, it's with that G5. The G5 is not shipped with the AP! But the G5 IS REQUIRED for the GFC 500 to work at all. ONLY Garmin installers! Ya.... Disclaimer...I have not seen the Documents.. 3rd party info. Does anyone here have access to the GFC Install manual? But the issue seems to be with the G5, NOT the GFC 500.. AND the test flights are not picking up the issue because (I am told) THE UNDERSPEED FUNCTION US USUALLY NOT TESTED. (?) One test flight involved the AP "directing the plane just fine and an "accurate coupled approach".. and singed off... N The brains of the autopilot are in the G5 and they are all the same. What you refer to as the GFC500 is just a control panel for pilot input to the brains. Not all Garmin Certified Installers are created equal. I don't blame Garmin for not taking the time to test every other manufacturer's equipment for compatibility. That takes time and money and increases the likelihood that an end user will buy someone else's navigator. It would be up to the other manufacturer to guy a GFC and do their own testing and changes to make their equipment compatible. They can then issue their own paperwork. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navi Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 13 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said: The low speed protection part of the ESP system uses that info. If you allow your speed to get below a speed that is aircraft model dependent AND your altitude is MORE than 200' AGL, the pitch servo will apply nose down force to keep you from getting slower. You don't want the servos doing that while you are flaring to land. It's in the AFMS. For the M20J the speeds are 65 KIAS with the autopilot OFF and 69 KIAS with the autopilot ON. And one would be using their AP engaged (why?) during the flare at 10 ft? (!) Or below 200 ft at all? So it allows you to stall at <200 ft. if engaged? Gotta think about this... N Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navi Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 15 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said: The brains of the autopilot are in the G5 and they are all the same. What you refer to as the GFC500 is just a control panel for pilot input to the brains. Not all Garmin Certified Installers are created equal. I don't blame Garmin for not taking the time to test every other manufacturer's equipment for compatibility. That takes time and money and increases the likelihood that an end user will buy someone else's navigator. It would be up to the other manufacturer to guy a GFC and do their own testing and changes to make their equipment compatible. They can then issue their own paperwork. That's why others have taken the time to test their equipment with others.. to insure that their products are as compatible as possible across the market, AND TO INSURE THAT THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS like this one.. Here we have a situation of an autopilot "not dong something it should" or "doing something it should not". BOTH are definitions of a "failure" that would have to be overridden or otherwise managed by the pilot. Sound familiar? Garmin will continue to do what Garmin will do. Whether it is in the best interest of their customers is up to the individual... N Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIm20c Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 Crap, some of my landing flares start at 200ft agl... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtVandelay Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 And one would be using their AP engaged (why?) during the flare at 10 ft? (!) Or below 200 ft at all? So it allows you to stall at Gotta think about this... N I don’t think the terrain database and GPS altitude is that accurate, hence the 200’ limit. Especially with private airports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpaul Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 53 minutes ago, Navi said: And one would be using their AP engaged (why?) during the flare at 10 ft? (!) Or below 200 ft at all? So it allows you to stall at <200 ft. if engaged? Gotta think about this... N The GFC500 is not certified for operations below 200' AGL. But, we all know how well folks follow limitations. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob - S50 Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Navi said: And one would be using their AP engaged (why?) during the flare at 10 ft? (!) Or below 200 ft at all? So it allows you to stall at <200 ft. if engaged? Gotta think about this... N You didn't read that very carefully. Even if the autopilot is OFF, if I am above 200' AGL and I let my speed drop below 65 KIAS, the pitch servo will turn on and apply nose down force to the yoke in order to prevent a potential stall situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob - S50 Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Navi said: That's why others have taken the time to test their equipment with others.. to insure that their products are as compatible as possible across the market, AND TO INSURE THAT THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS like this one.. Here we have a situation of an autopilot "not dong something it should" or "doing something it should not". BOTH are definitions of a "failure" that would have to be overridden or otherwise managed by the pilot. Sound familiar? Garmin will continue to do what Garmin will do. Whether it is in the best interest of their customers is up to the individual... N Garmin never promised it would work with other navigators. When paired with the approved navigators it works as advertised. As a matter of fact it works very well as advertised. The reason the 'others' do that is usually because they don't make all the avionics required. STEC doesn't make navigators for GA. Aspen doesn't make autopilots. TT doesn't make navigators. Trio doesn't make navigators. If any of them want to be able to sell their equipment, 'they' need to make sure it works with the other equipment. And 'they' can do that with the Garmin AP too if they wish. There is no reason why 'they' should expect Garmin to do their work for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 3 minutes ago, kpaul said: The GFC500 is not certified for operations below 200' AGL. But, we all know how well folks follow limitations. The TT A/P isn't usable below 700' but everyone wants to use it down to LPV mins! Or lower. They all want to shoot LPV approaches with it. Pilots at times are stupid! I'm not selling Garmin here but I can understand form a business model AND a liability model why they want only their own products to talk to each other. I said it a long time ago- think of the liability interfacing with other makers equipment? If the other guys stuff fails YOU get sued for their issues and if you have the deep pockets you pay. Here's another one- if there was a built in market for someone to invest in I would think that the old Brittain system would be a prime business opportunity. Everything is already approved. Thousands of them are in use over many different platforms. They would be cheap additions to any legacy airplane FOR WHAT THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR. What they needed was investment capital and more employees. Jerry and company were gems to work with. I enjoyed very trip to their shop but they were undermanned and lacked capital. Not taking them to task as it was their business model for them. Now with new ownership where are they? The world is waiting for a cheap simple autopilot and no one wants to supply it. And yet they get bought out and what does the aviation world hear? Crickets nothing but crickets. Some business model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 1 hour ago, cliffy said: The TT A/P isn't usable below 700' but everyone wants to use it down to LPV mins! Or lower. They all want to shoot LPV approaches with it. Pilots at times are stupid! I'm not selling Garmin here but I can understand form a business model AND a liability model why they want only their own products to talk to each other. I said it a long time ago- think of the liability interfacing with other makers equipment? If the other guys stuff fails YOU get sued for their issues and if you have the deep pockets you pay. Here's another one- if there was a built in market for someone to invest in I would think that the old Brittain system would be a prime business opportunity. Everything is already approved. Thousands of them are in use over many different platforms. They would be cheap additions to any legacy airplane FOR WHAT THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR. What they needed was investment capital and more employees. Jerry and company were gems to work with. I enjoyed very trip to their shop but they were undermanned and lacked capital. Not taking them to task as it was their business model for them. Now with new ownership where are they? The world is waiting for a cheap simple autopilot and no one wants to supply it. And yet they get bought out and what does the aviation world hear? Crickets nothing but crickets. Some business model. For Brittain, new ownership means new FAA approval for both PMA and Repair Station . . . . . I'm also getting tired of waiting!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandman993 Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 I looked at the g500 in 2018 Oshkosh... the unit needs two G5’s to be fully functional so installed G5’s will come in at an extra 10k. The g500 install will come in around 5k. If you want the 3x touch as well, garmin booth said all in you would be writing a check for 33k fly out. so when folks like av web start carrying water for garmin by saying the autopilot is 7,000 bones, I choke. Misinformation or they just don’t research... doesn’t matter, same result. 2019 Oshkosh, was so excited to be there in anticipation of “the announcement”... all that turned out to be was the sale of the company to BK. Now it’s mid July 2020 and who knows... gimme a break... any chance someone from BK might give the FAA a call? Maybe ask wassup? Garmin continues to announce new products etc.... thankfully the old century hasn’t been doing “crazy Ivan’s” lately, but I would be pretty nervous flying an imc approach with it. hell, gimme the appropriate phone number and I’ll call em! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBDiagMan Posted July 16, 2020 Report Share Posted July 16, 2020 7 hours ago, Marauder said: I can't speak to the installed price, but I'm sure someone will have this information. The GFC 500 is a lot more than what you want but Garmin isn't taking the add-on approach that you see with the Century and STEC models. That said, a basic STEC 20 which is a single axis autopilot (no pitch control) is listed on Genesys's website with a $8000 MSRP. The starting price for the GFC 500 (two axis) is $7000 MSRP. Why would you go with a basic analog autopilot with old style servos while for less money, you get a full blown AP with digital servos? When I heard TT was purchased by BK, I cringed. Their issues with delivering products on time extend well beyond just the FAA certification process. A few years ago they tried to introduce their KSN 770 GPS unit, they were struggling to get the project completed. They ended up going to Aspen Avionics to have them build the GUI for the unit. I think their ability to produce a product on time is well noted. Remember the running joke about the KI-300? They said it would be introduced "next quarter". They left out which year. TruTrak didn’t need any coaching on how to drag out product delivery. They were doing fine on their own even before the purchase. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. mitchell Posted July 17, 2020 Report Share Posted July 17, 2020 I looked at the TruTrak website earlier this afternoon and noticed that the Mooney pre order picture was no longer there. I am hoping that TruTrak has not abandoned our vintage Mooneys. When at OSH a couple of years ago there was a Mooney M20E, I believe, with a TruTrak autopilot installed. I was told to expect it to be available for my C model within 6 months...still waiting.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted July 17, 2020 Report Share Posted July 17, 2020 6 hours ago, Hank said: For Brittain, new ownership means new FAA approval for both PMA and Repair Station . . . . . I'm also getting tired of waiting!!! With the process already laid out and approved its not that big of a hurdle to get approved. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, just do what was being done. Aviation businesses get bought out all the time and new approvals move ahead without undue delay. To purchase a business with the history of Brittian and then go silent to the industry that made it famous seems a bit curious of a business model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schinderhannes Posted July 17, 2020 Report Share Posted July 17, 2020 In light of the fact that the Honeywell mother ship is in the process of laying off 40% of their staff with focus on the aviation department I wouldn't count on any progress. I just hope that my Accutrak soldiers on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drapo Posted July 17, 2020 Report Share Posted July 17, 2020 One thing to remember about the TruTrakVizion/Aerocuze100 offering, it is already flying on several Cessna and Piper airframes and the servos and control head will be the same as the Mooney, the only difference is the location of the servos. Airframe have to be individually certificated by the FAA and BK is at the final step of that process for, at least, the short body Mooneys as the system was installed and tested on a M20E. When I visited the factory, I saw the test plane and the installation and also the servos and control heads that were being produced, so it's not a unicorn! I own an IFD540 equiped Super 21 and the only real option for me is to wait for the Aerocruze100. AccutrakII is still working but I miss the altitude portion of an autopilot. So I guess I'll have to wait for it! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlySafe Posted July 19, 2020 Report Share Posted July 19, 2020 I came across this recent thread on Pilots of America. Appears the frustration with TruTrak/Aerocruze100 wait not limited to Mooney owners, even some on the AML are experiencing problems with BendixKing supply chain and communications. I do not know how common these issues are for other Aerocruze purchasers but I found it interesting as our community continues to wait for news on this autopilot. https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/problems-wit-aerocruze-100-install-lack-thereof.126381/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionudakis Posted July 19, 2020 Report Share Posted July 19, 2020 That's all disappointing to read about TT / BK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.