GFC500 Update

[carqwik]

Well it's a lot cheaper this way...probably fine for Part 91 flying. 

[ArtVandelay]

My only complaint is that this limitation doesn’t seem to be well documented. I certainly hope it’s clearly described in the POH supplement, in bold print, and appropriate annunciations let the pilot know what’s happening.


Tom

[khedrei]

20 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

My only complaint is that this limitation doesn’t seem to be well documented. I certainly hope it’s clearly described in the POH supplement, in bold print, and appropriate annunciations let the pilot know what’s happening.


Tom

I will certainly agree with this statement.  Like many here, I fully believed that it would have been capable of tracking a ground based signal regardless of GPS.  Garmin could have done a better job making this fact/limitation very clear.

[aviatoreb]

22 hours ago, khedrei said:

I felt I should weigh in here and ask if it's just me, or are people complaining about nothing?

First of all, how many people here would regularly go IFR flying in hard IMC without GPS?  I know it's possible, but if you knew GPS was down and had a trip planned, would you still go?  Next part of the question would be, how often do you fly ground based approaches?  This is a legitimate question because most of the airports in Canada that I would fly into are fairly small and do not have ILS or LOC approaches.  That leaves me with RNAV which almost every airport has.  If GPS was down in low IMC I would be on my way to my alternate anyway.

I was a bit taken back when I started reading this thread as I was also surprised that Garmin would allow this lack of capability.  And I will agree that it certainly is a lack of capability.  But the more I thought about it the more I realized that it really wouldn't matter 99.9% of the time.  Possibly 99.9999% of the time.

It seems that there are some that are confused about what happens if you lose GPS.  The auto pilot will still function in HDG and VS mode.  Meaning you use that approach plate and get the heading that it tells you to fly on final.  Use that little chart on the side of the approach plate that tells you what VS to descend at based on your GS.  Then, just fly to the IF and intercept the LOC and Glidslope and plug those numbers into the A/P.  Watch the needles and adjust a couple degrees right or left as needed for wind and 100ft/m up or down accordingly to stay on the glideslope.  Am I missing something here?  Or are there lots of people who can't do that?  That's a legitimate question by the way.

The way I see it, I wouldn't be flying in IMC without having done at least a few approaches completely by hand in the last couple months, nevermind with an A/P in manual mode.  In my opinion, if you can't HAND FLY an ILS down to absolute minimums and execute a safe landing you should never be leaving and planning to arrive when the ceiling at your destination is forecast that low.  Remember, forgetting about GPS, your auto pilot can fail at any time and you would be stuck hand flying it, so you better know how.  In fact, (I'm just speculating from common sense here) I would venture to guess that the likelihood of your A/P malfunctioning AT SOME POINT during your flight is more likely than you losing GPS signal WHILE you are on an ILS approach.  In response to one of the posts above regarding figuring out the winds if GPS failed during the approach; you would have to do that anyway if your A/P failed.  That's what an overshoot is for and that's why you flight planned enough fuel for it.  And yes, good thing we are not flying commercially.  I doubt there are many Mooney pilots flying their Mooney for hire, and if they are, they have other auto pilot options.  Or, they could use this one and just not be able to depart if GPS is down that day.

While I agree it's a bit disappointing that we won't be getting THE WHOLE PACKAGE with capability to revert back to a more primitive system if the new state of the art one fails.  BUT, I would offer a bet that out of all the people who install one of these systems, if I came back in 10 years to ask how many people were affected negatively by this I wouldn't even need to take off my mittens to count them.  It's almost like we are more concerned that this A/P doesn't have absolutely all capabilities than we are with the likelihood that we may have to struggle to shoot an approach in manual mode because of a GPS outage.  It's like an EGO thing rather than an actual problem.

There are comedians that talk about this sort of thing...  "In America they don't have real problems so they make ones up".  First world problems I say.

Just my two cents.  Not trying to step on anyone.

Huh?

If I am a customer and I am asked what capabilities do I want, then I reserve the right to assert what I want.  And I want more when I am paying for the more premium product.  Will I maybe buy anyway if it is missing some of my want list, considering other possible capabilities. Yes certainly I will weigh cost, benefit and capabilities and make my choice.  

You seem to be asserting that I am silly for even wishing for the capability of being able to track an ILS with a broken GPS, that this makes me either a picky American who is making up problems, or perhaps I am incapable pilot who is not sufficiently practiced and capable to hand fly my airplane.  Huh - in that case forget the autopilot because I am a macho pilot capable to hand fly my airplane at all times.  

Yes I have had my autopilot misbehave while in IMC, and even during ILS approach (more than once) causing me to decide to disengage and hand fly.  I have also had my GPS decide to go inop while over the tops and I confidently proceeded by VOR, and the S-Loc on the plate.  My decision making as to if to launch with inop equipment is as you said - yes I would not launch with my GPS inop but I have had my GPS fail (in a strange way the GNS430 screen died but apparently was otherwise working...so I replaced it with a GTN650 rather than repair).  Yes I can hand fly.  Yes I know how to use my VOR equipment and to read the S-LOC line on my approach plates.  But my decision making is different when I am shopping to buy new equipment - I am not asking myself just what I don't need - I am shopping to search for equipment with redundancies and with desirable failure modes.

How about I call myself a well practiced pilot capable of hand flying in IMC AND a customer considering if to spend 20k+ to replace a currently function autopilot for one that may be more capable?   I find it very appropriate to stomp my foot and ask why the GFC500 will not fly an ILS without a GPS in place.  I might well buy the system anyway but....it is a slight knock off my desire to do so.

Edited January 19, 2019 by aviatoreb

[MICKEY]

23 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Huh?

If I am a customer and I am asked what capabilities do I want, then I reserve the right to assert what I want.  And I want more when I am paying for the more premium product.  Will I maybe buy anyway if it is missing some of my want list, considering other possible capabilities. Yes certainly I will weigh cost, benefit and capabilities and make my choice.  

You seem to be asserting that I am silly for even wishing for the capability of being able to track an ILS with a broken GPS, that this makes me either a picky American who is making up problems, or perhaps I am incapable pilot who is not sufficiently practiced and capable to hand fly my airplane.  Huh - in that case forget the autopilot because I am a macho pilot capable to hand fly my airplane at all times.  

Yes I have had my autopilot misbehave while in IMC, and even during ILS approach (more than once) causing me to decide to disengage and hand fly.  I have also had my GPS decide to go inop while over the tops and I confidently proceeded by VOR, and the S-Loc on the plate.  My decision making as to if to launch with inop equipment is as you said - yes I would not launch with my GPS inop but I have had my GPS fail (in a strange way the GNS430 screen died but apparently was otherwise working...so I replaced it with a GTN650 rather than repair).  Yes I can hand fly.  Yes I know how to use my VOR equipment and to read the S-LOC line on my approach plates.  But my decision making is different when I am shopping to buy new equipment - I am not asking myself just what I don't need - I am shopping to search for equipment with redundancies and with desirable failure modes.

How about I call myself a well practiced pilot capable of hand flying in IMC AND a customer considering if to spend 20k+ to replace a currently function autopilot for one that may be more capable?   I find it very appropriate to stomp my foot and ask why the GFC500 will not fly an ILS without a GPS in place.  I might well buy the system anyway but....it is a slight knock off my desire to do so.

This is a great expression of what I, and I think many consumers on Mooney Space are thinking.  We're trading no ILS approach without GPS for a LVL button and other VNAV capabilities.  Many of us have decent or great autopilots.  I think that if Garmin said we'd have VOR/ILS capability without GPS input those on the edge would more than likely drop the 20k.  I know I would go from about 40% likely to upgrade to 90%+ to upgrade.  Good post AviatorEB.

[Bob - S50]

19 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Huh?

If I am a customer and I am asked what capabilities do I want, then I reserve the right to assert what I want.  And I want more when I am paying for the more premium product.  Will I maybe buy anyway if it is missing some of my want list, considering other possible capabilities. Yes certainly I will weigh cost, benefit and capabilities and make my choice.  

You seem to be asserting that I am silly for even wishing for the capability of being able to track an ILS with a broken GPS, that this makes me either a picky American who is making up problems, or perhaps I am incapable pilot who is not sufficiently practiced and capable to hand fly my airplane.  Huh - in that case forget the autopilot because I am a macho pilot capable to hand fly my airplane at all times.  

Yes I have had my autopilot misbehave while in IMC, and even during ILS approach (more than once) causing me to decide to disengage and hand fly.  I have also had my GPS decide to go inop while over the tops and I confidently proceeded by VOR, and the S-Loc on the plate.  My decision making as to if to launch with inop equipment is as you said - yes I would not launch with my GPS inop but I have had my GPS fail (in a strange way the GNS430 screen died but apparently was otherwise working...so I replaced it with a GTN650 rather than repair).  Yes I can hand fly.  Yes I know how to use my VOR equipment and to read the S-LOC line on my approach plates.  But my decision making is different when I am shopping to buy new equipment - I am not asking myself just what I don't need - I am shopping to search for equipment with redundancies and with desirable failure modes.

How about I call myself a well practiced pilot capable of hand flying in IMC AND a customer considering if to spend 20k+ to replace a currently function autopilot for one that may be more capable?   I find it very appropriate to stomp my foot and ask why the GFC500 will not fly an ILS without a GPS in place.  I might well buy the system anyway but....it is a slight knock off my desire to do so.

I don't think he was making a personal attack on you.  I think he was saying that, practically speaking, it really isn't that big of a deal, and I agree.

We all need to do our research including reading through the manual.  We should not make assumptions about what a system will or will not do.  We should not rely on forum posts to make us fully informed.

Once we've done that we can do just what you suggest; weigh the cost/benefits and make a decision.  If we don't like it don't buy it.

For what it's worth, the GFC500/GTN650 will be more capable than the autopilot I had for 14,000 hours in the DC-9 and it will do almost everything the FMC/autopilot in the 757/767 would do.  For the price I think that's pretty good, even with the limitations.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Bob - S50
grammar

[aviatoreb]

51 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

I don't think he was making a personal attack on you.  I think he was saying that, practically speaking, it really isn't that big of a deal, and I agree.

 

I wasn’t intending to take it personally.  I guess it’s hard to pitch a specific tone when writing and perhaps I missed the mark.

[carqwik]

I look at this issue the following way.  1) My KFC-150 works pretty well now except that it is "lazy" in NAV tracking; 2) I already spent approx $6000 14 years ago getting a cold solder on the flight computer repaired after two other previous failed attempts to diagnose/correct ($ are total for all shops)' 3) If GPS goes down, I'm back to VOR Nav anyways and hand flying an approach; 4) considering an approach takes all of maybe 10-15 minutes (IP to MAP), the risk of loss GPS is marginal given RAIM calculations in the GPS which would at least give some prediction as to whether or not available; 5) any other replacement A/P will cost the same or more (except perhaps the supposed AeroCruze - remains TBD as to availability); and 6) I can't put in a GFC-600 at any price.

So despite the limitations of the GFC-500, my choices are limited to either 1) remain with KFC-150 and pray nothing breaks;  2) hope King isn't just telling tales to keep me and others from going with Brand G; or 3) go with GFC-500 that will most be a positive upgrade from the King except in highly limited circumstances. 

One question though, will I need a WAAS GPS for the GFC-500 to make it all work?

[Bob - S50]

7 hours ago, carqwik said:

...

One question though, will I need a WAAS GPS for the GFC-500 to make it all work?

The GFC500 needs at least one G5 (but 2 gives it more capability).  I'm pretty sure the G5 needs a WAAS GPS but it has such a receiver built in.  If you want to use that instead of investing in a WAAS navigation unit you'll only need to buy a GPS antenna and hook it to the G5.  However, you'll need a compatible navigator.  It looks like a G5 HSI can connect to a GTNxxx, GNSxxx, GNC255, or SL30 for navigation; but I don't if all of those will work with the GFC portion.

[ArtVandelay]

The GFC500 needs at least one G5 (but 2 gives it more capability).

Other than redundancy, what additional capability do 2 provide?


Tom

[Bob - S50]

6 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

Other than redundancy, what additional capability do 2 provide?


Tom

I may have misspoke, but the minimum system with one G5, the GMC507, and two servos will only provide pitch, roll, track, and air data.  You'll have to buy the GMU11 to get heading.  And you'll need either a GAD29 or GAD29B and an approved nav source to get navigation.   You may not need the second G5.  The ADI G5 should show everything you need to navigate including selected course, ground track, heading, lateral deviation, and vertical deviation; although they won't display as traditionally as you would see on an HSI.

Sorry.

[khedrei]

22 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Huh?

If I am a customer and I am asked what capabilities do I want, then I reserve the right to assert what I want.  And I want more when I am paying for the more premium product.  Will I maybe buy anyway if it is missing some of my want list, considering other possible capabilities. Yes certainly I will weigh cost, benefit and capabilities and make my choice.  

You seem to be asserting that I am silly for even wishing for the capability of being able to track an ILS with a broken GPS, that this makes me either a picky American who is making up problems, or perhaps I am incapable pilot who is not sufficiently practiced and capable to hand fly my airplane.  Huh - in that case forget the autopilot because I am a macho pilot capable to hand fly my airplane at all times.  

Yes I have had my autopilot misbehave while in IMC, and even during ILS approach (more than once) causing me to decide to disengage and hand fly.  I have also had my GPS decide to go inop while over the tops and I confidently proceeded by VOR, and the S-Loc on the plate.  My decision making as to if to launch with inop equipment is as you said - yes I would not launch with my GPS inop but I have had my GPS fail (in a strange way the GNS430 screen died but apparently was otherwise working...so I replaced it with a GTN650 rather than repair).  Yes I can hand fly.  Yes I know how to use my VOR equipment and to read the S-LOC line on my approach plates.  But my decision making is different when I am shopping to buy new equipment - I am not asking myself just what I don't need - I am shopping to search for equipment with redundancies and with desirable failure modes.

How about I call myself a well practiced pilot capable of hand flying in IMC AND a customer considering if to spend 20k+ to replace a currently function autopilot for one that may be more capable?   I find it very appropriate to stomp my foot and ask why the GFC500 will not fly an ILS without a GPS in place.  I might well buy the system anyway but....it is a slight knock off my desire to do so.

Huh is right...

Well, since you went there....  I will say that it seems to me you are making up problems.  I will certainly not comment on your abilities as a pilot because I have no idea.  If I had to place a bet, I'd guess you are quite capable.  I don't think you are silly for wanting an auto pilot that has the capability to fly a coupled ILS without GPS signal.  Not at all.  But then this isn't the one for you.  Keep the one you have if you are so happy with it, or if you want one that can do absolutely everything, then pay the 30k+ for a new STEC (I'm not sure, but I think that one can do everything.  Correct me if I am wrong). Garmin never claimed this one could.  Everyone on here (myself included) simply assumed it did but didn't read the fine print.  They also never claimed that it was an upgrade from any specific auto pilot that is currently in operation.  I don't know what you currently have, but does it have auto trim?  Does it have a yaw damper?  Does it have the ability to do IAS climbs?  Does it have a safety feature that will level the airplane from an unusual attitude even if the auto pilot is turned off?  Will it allow you to hand steer the airplane without disengaging?  Will it fly an overshoot, fly a missed approach procedure climbing to the proper altitude, follow the way points to the holding fix and place you into a hold all at the push of a button and a jam on the throttle?  If yours already does all this, then why are you looking to upgrade?

This auto pilot isn't for everyone and I am not claiming to know exactly what market Garmin is trying to target, but it seems to me that they are going for people with nothing, or people like me who have a single axis Centry which doesn't work half the time, and the other half will have me on edge wondering if it will randomly bank 30 decrees for no reason.  If you have a G5 you can be out the door for $10k including labour for a very capable 2-axis auto pilot with envelope protection and an emergency level button.  That's a far cry from other options out there at $30k +.  But, they also market to people who want the entire package like I mentioned above, and you are still under $25k including labour.

The real question is, are we pissed off because this auto pilot can't fly a stand along ILS if GPS is down, or are we pissed off at ourselves because we thought it could and didn't read the details?  Again I ask, how often will this EVER actually happen.  Remember, your GPS screen going out isn't necessarily a GPS failure, and because the G5 has it's own GPS as long as the G5 is working I have a feeling there still wouldn't be an issue.  To me this seems so much like a non issue I am even laughing about the fact that I thought it was when I first read it.

The part about making up problems in my first post was more or less a joke and not meant to offend anyone.  That is why I mentioned that comedians say stuff like that, but there is some truth to it.  I stop myself all the time when I get irritated by things in life.  I live in the western world, I have food every day, and I fly my own airplane.  Life is pretty good.  Is this really something worth being upset about?  Is this ACTUALLY a problem.  If it is, don't buy it.  But don't complain about it.

My 2 cents

Edited January 20, 2019 by khedrei

[Ned Gravel]

I could be wrong, but a single G5 (in the HSI slot) does not provide any flight director capabilities and the GFC 500 has that option.  So one G5 does horizontal direction input, even GPSS, but no vertical.  That is what I have now (with an STEC 50).

I have seen a single G5 in the AI/FD slot and that should provide vertical FD capability.

[EricJ]

4 hours ago, Ned Gravel said:

I could be wrong, but a single G5 (in the HSI slot) does not provide any flight director capabilities and the GFC 500 has that option.  So one G5 does horizontal direction input, even GPSS, but no vertical.  That is what I have now (with an STEC 50).

I have seen a single G5 in the AI/FD slot and that should provide vertical FD capability.

I have a G5 installed as an HSI, and it provides vertical capability.   My ancient Century III will fly a glidepath from it.

[aviatoreb]

6 hours ago, khedrei said:

 

Please see what I said above, and I repeat for you

>I wasn’t intending to take it personally.  I guess it’s hard to pitch a specific tone when writing and perhaps I missed the mark.

I hope we can take a reset.  Rather than replying to what you specifically said just now, I think from what I see you just said that you missed my intended tone and misunderstand the intent of my assertions, and I take fault for that, and I clearly must have misunderstood your intent and tone.  I apologize.

Edited January 21, 2019 by aviatoreb

[Marauder]

Does anyone know if the GFC 600 is subject to the GPS restriction?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[thinwing]

On 12/21/2018 at 3:38 PM, smccray said:

Control wheel steering lets the pilot take control of the airplane manually without disconnecting the autopilot.  I didn't use it much with the KAP150 in my Mooney, and it remains to be seen how useful it is in my bonanza.  It's advantageous where you're trying to establish a climb with an attitude based autopilot.  Hit the CWS button, adjust the attitude for the desired climb rate, then release the button to reengage the autopilot.

I use it If for some reason if I’m vectored to an approach segment considerably higher than published..I’m in heading mode being vectored at 3500 and need to be at 1500 fairly quickly..hit the Cws button and handfly down 

[Greg_D]

For those going the route of dual G5s and the GFC 500 to replace the Bendix King KFC 150s, what are the options for controlling the electric trim?  Are you going to be able to use the BK trim switch on the yoke, or does that get replaced with something else?  What about CWS?  Is there an option for that on the GFC 500?

[Bob - S50]

12 hours ago, Greg_D said:

For those going the route of dual G5s and the GFC 500 to replace the Bendix King KFC 150s, what are the options for controlling the electric trim?  Are you going to be able to use the BK trim switch on the yoke, or does that get replaced with something else?  What about CWS?  Is there an option for that on the GFC 500?

We are replacing a KFC200.  We plan to keep the switch as long as it works.

I don't think the GFC has CWS.  I can live with that.  To be honest, the only times I've ever used it was because either I needed to maneuver quickly due to traffic or because the KFC was moving the plane so slowly that it was going to grossly overshoot the course and I could fix it quicker by hand.  With the GFC, if I need to maneuver quickly for traffic I'll just turn it off and then re-engage when I'm done.  With GNSS, I shouldn't need to fix overshoots.

[aviatoreb]

12 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

We are replacing a KFC200.  We plan to keep the switch as long as it works.

I don't think the GFC has CWS.  I can live with that.  To be honest, the only times I've ever used it was because either I needed to maneuver quickly due to traffic or because the KFC was moving the plane so slowly that it was going to grossly overshoot the course and I could fix it quicker by hand.  With the GFC, if I need to maneuver quickly for traffic I'll just turn it off and then re-engage when I'm done.  With GNSS, I shouldn't need to fix overshoots.

I have a question - so on my KFC200 besides a cws button on the right hand of the yoke, I also have a quick disengage autopilot button on the same right hand horn of my yoke.  Will the GFC500 have the possibility of a quick disengage autopilot button on the yoke?  With no cws button this then is particularly more useful and I hope it does.

[Bob - S50]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

I have a question - so on my KFC200 besides a cws button on the right hand of the yoke, I also have a quick disengage autopilot button on the same right hand horn of my yoke.  Will the GFC500 have the possibility of a quick disengage autopilot button on the yoke?  With no cws button this then is particularly more useful and I hope it does.

Yes.  A disconnect button is part of the installation.  If I remember right it will almost be like the airlines.  If you press it once the AP will disconnect but you may get an aural warning that the AP has disconnected.  If you press it a second time it should turn off the warning.  That's why most airline pilots have a nervous thumb twitch that causes us to press the disconnect button twice in rapid succession instead of just once.

Also, if I remember right, if you have runaway trim situation or some other AP problem, they want you to hold that button down until you pull the CB to turn the system off.  In our Mooney's that means we will probably have to reach over with our left hand to hold the button while we lean over and use the right hand to pull the CB.

And before you ask, there will also be a TO/GA button.

We plan to use the currently installed KFC buttons unless our installer finds a problem with them.

[flyboy0681]

9 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

 If you press it once the AP will disconnect but you may get an aural warning that the AP has disconnected. 

Like this?

747 Disconnect.mp3

[ArtVandelay]

I wonder if the government shutdown will delay certification of GFC500 and other avionics in the works.


Tom

[aviatoreb]

8 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

I wonder if the government shutdown will delay certification of GFC500 and other avionics in the works.


Tom

I would think so.

[Marauder]

Yes.  A disconnect button is part of the installation.  If I remember right it will almost be like the airlines.  If you press it once the AP will disconnect but you may get an aural warning that the AP has disconnected.  If you press it a second time it should turn off the warning.  That's why most airline pilots have a nervous thumb twitch that causes us to press the disconnect button twice in rapid succession instead of just once.
Also, if I remember right, if you have runaway trim situation or some other AP problem, they want you to hold that button down until you pull the CB to turn the system off.  In our Mooney's that means we will probably have to reach over with our left hand to hold the button while we lean over and use the right hand to pull the CB.
And before you ask, there will also be a TO/GA button.
We plan to use the currently installed KFC buttons unless our installer finds a problem with them.

Not sure if all this is true of all post OEM autopilots, but my STEC has an autotrim as well as AP panel mounted switches, in addition to the circuit breaker.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro