GFC500 Update

[donkaye, MCFI]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

Yes!  By the time you add all of the options to the GFC500 including the needed G5 it's not that much more for the GFC600, a much more sophisticated autopilot with more robust servos.

Now if only they would add Mooney to the AML.

I think the GFC 600 with yaw damper runs in the order of 25K for parts alone.  You still need a backup that would have to be added and that backup would need to interface with the GFC 600 to be able to provide automatic baro correction.  The GFC 500 has a TRK mode while the GFC 600 doesn't seem to have that.  The servos of the 600 are about twice as big and twice as heavy as those of the 500 so maybe there wouldn't be the oscillation issue requiring lubing of the control services, but that should be done anyway.  As an educated guess, I would say the installed price of the GFC 600 would approach 40K with the yaw damper.  Then add some type of backup.  After sales of all parts. my installation including yaw damper came to just over 17K.  Assuming sales of parts for the GFC 600, net price would be around 35K (assuming a backup already exists).

So I think a GFC 600 installation would cost nearly double the price of the GFC 500, and TRK mode is available on the GFC 500.

I really think flying the GFC 500 should be done before dismissing its purchase.

[MIm20c]

That is a software and paperwork limitation used for faster certification and performance testing to Garmin’s standards. Nothing prevents them from phasing that limitation out in the future like...

...g5 limited to experimental only...no interface to analog AP’s...no FIKI...not certified for backup use...etc

I’m curious if they could download AP performance data from the thousands of hours soon to accumulated by the 500 and help modify/tweak the software to make it better (model specific). 

[Ragsf15e]

I bet the limitation could come out when the ap is driven by a gi-275 in the future too.

[aviatoreb]

7 hours ago, PT20J said:

...So, if GPS is unavailable, or the GNS430W tanks, or the PFD goes dark I can get down the old fashioned way.

Skip

...the old fashioned way?  You mean gravity?

[aviatoreb]

Im following what everyone is saying and this is my take.

When considering something expensive like an AP install, for an airplane with none, then anything is better than none.  When considering removing a working autopilot to add a different one, it is natural to lament functionality lost even if it is a backup remote chance functionality.  On the other hand, something like lost GPS signal can happen, either due to global lost availability, or otherwise due to a local hardware failure (broken GTN?), but that happens rarely so we would hope - but it should not be a critical emergency but rather just a convenience emergency assuming we know how to hand fly our airplanes on an ILS.  So if it is convenience, consider the convenience of a superb ride like rails autopilot for most of the time like the GFC500 vs the rare inconvenience of having to hand fly if GPS signal, versus the less precise but still good KFC200 but always there even if GPS signal fails - but then...KFC200 is old stuff so how reliable is it in the first place versus how reliable is the complete system GFC500...I would say my KFC200 is more likely to go belly up in say 100 hours worth of flying and force me to hand fly rather than a GFC500 to loose GPS signal and force me to handily my ILS, total risks all in - made up numbers so your mileage may vary.

Not to mention the cost of install of a new GFC500 r&r vs the continuing cost of maintaining KFC200.

Now the discussion of GFC600 keeps bubbling up, but I find this no more relevant than bringing up the cost of a G3000 with a GFC700 autopilot - these are not available for my airplane, so cost is not part of that story - it aint available at any cost.

[khedrei]

4 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

I am not looking for something to complain about. If I didn't have an autopilot I may consider a GFC500 , but taking out an autopilot that is able to fly a coupled ILS without GPS and then spending that much money and not being able to fly a coupled ILS during a GPS outage would be a step backwards in capability for me so I wouldn't even consider it - a complete non-starter. If the GFC600 is approved someday for Mooney it would be nice to have envelope protection and a true digital autopilot with internal AHRS (very close to the GFC700) and I would carefully consider it.

There was a thread about this awhile back on Beechtalk and sadly many people who had already spent the money and installed a GFC500 didn't even realize that it had that limitation. It was a complete surprise to them. It would be nice to know that limitation before you attempted it in IMC during an already disconcerting GPS outage.

Seems to me you are looking for something to complain about since you are saying that the GFC500 has this horrible " limitation" by not being able to fly a coupled approach if something that pretty much never happens, happens.  GPS outages almost never happen. Has one ever even happened to you? And if you knew GPS was going to be down would you ever even launch an IFR flight on standard equipement alone?

With Vnav mode, envelope protection, a LVL button and ESP taking over even when the AP is not even engaged it's a bit of false advertising to claim it's a step backwards because it can't do something in a situation that pretty much never happens. Also remember that the AP still works if GPS is down. You just have to think more and use it in heading and VS mode.

If the reason you are against it is because you think it's not worth ripping out a perfectly functioning auto pilot I would probably agree with you. But to say it's a step backwards is total hogwash. 

[khedrei]

And as mentioned above, you are more likely to lose your old king AP entirely and be stuck hand flying as opposed to losing the GPS and having to use the GFC500 in heading and VS mode. At least I'll still have an AP. 

To say this is a step backwards from an old king AP is talking complete nonsense. 

[81X]

54 minutes ago, khedrei said:

And as mentioned above, you are more likely to lose your old king AP entirely and be stuck hand flying as opposed to losing the GPS and having to use the GFC500 in heading and VS mode. At least I'll still have an AP. 

To say this is a step backwards from an old king AP is talking complete nonsense. 

Ok, I’ll bite on this as well. I couldn’t agree more with this statement above.  Here’s the real life of having a 30+ year old KFC150 AP vs the GFC500.  In the 1.5 years I had my KFC150, I had:

 

Random disconnects due to fluctuating voltage as sort of displayed by the ammeter (different root issue but still caused a disconnect). No disconnects when this same issue showed up with having the GFC500. 
 

KFC150 servo? issues in rough air causing disconnect. Never an issue with the GFC500 in some really rough stuff. 
 

DC electric remote directional gyro failed, rendering the KFC150 useless. 
 

Broken wire and old KFC150 tray connectors not connecting randomly upon reinstalls.  Not exactly the KFC150’s fault, but the connector type and age are an important failure mode of any old AP. 
 

I’ll take my chances with the minuscule chances of hand flying (Or using VS/HDG mode AP) a working ILS if GPS goes out vs the above. 
 

In the one year I’ve had my GFC500, I’ve had:

Over 110 hours of flight time, zero disconnects, malfunctions, or failures. 
 

Just one person’s real world experience.  

[LANCECASPER]

3 hours ago, khedrei said:

Seems to me you are looking for something to complain about since you are saying that the GFC500 has this horrible " limitation" by not being able to fly a coupled approach if something that pretty much never happens, happens.  GPS outages almost never happen. Has one ever even happened to you? And if you knew GPS was going to be down would you ever even launch an IFR flight on standard equipement alone?

With Vnav mode, envelope protection, a LVL button and ESP taking over even when the AP is not even engaged it's a bit of false advertising to claim it's a step backwards because it can't do something in a situation that pretty much never happens. Also remember that the AP still works if GPS is down. You just have to think more and use it in heading and VS mode.

If the reason you are against it is because you think it's not worth ripping out a perfectly functioning auto pilot I would probably agree with you. But to say it's a step backwards is total hogwash. 

If it never happens to you that's great, but if you bother to read further up in the posts you'll see that a week ago Friday all over Texas (on 1/24/20) there were GPS outages.

I was doing some recurrent training that afternoon with an instructor and we were planning on doing GPS approaches into KERV and T82 - we couldn't since ATC said those approaches were unavailable due to GPS outage. We did the localizer approach into KERV and eventually later in the afternoon when GPS came back up we did the RNAV 12 into KERV and the RNAV 14 into T82. My instructor, Gary Reeves, who was the 2019 FAA National Instructor of the Year, and trains all over the country said that he sees GPS outages frequently. In our conversation we both agreed that having an autopilot that won't fly a coupled ILS when there's a GPS outage is a serious limitation. Again if that doesn't bother you that's great, but I think it's a valid point. People who know me know I don't look for reasons to complain. When it happens to you, and if you fly enough near parts of the country where there is military training you will experience it. At that point you may feel differently about it. 

[gsxrpilot]

2 hours ago, khedrei said:

And as mentioned above, you are more likely to lose your old king AP entirely and be stuck hand flying as opposed to losing the GPS and having to use the GFC500 in heading and VS mode. At least I'll still have an AP. 

To say this is a step backwards from an old king AP is talking complete nonsense. 

I've got an old KFC150 and, knock on wood, it's never failed me in about 600 hours of flight time. During that time, I've experienced two GPS outages. Once, in Savanna, the tower asked if I was experiencing GPS trouble. I said I was. They said that two other jets had reported GPS issues. Otherwise they weren't aware of any outage. There was no NOTAM or other official word. It just wasn't working in Savanna that day.

[PT20J]

And then there was the time I was IMC vectored for the approach to Monterey CA with about a 30 kt cross wind at 2000'. The tower had just switched runways from 28L to 10R and forgot to change over the localizer. The unexpected reverse sensing made for an interesting intercept. So, stuff can happen with any system. I'm certainly not knocking the GFC 500. I'm sure it's a great autopilot. Garmin builds fine stuff and if it fit in with my current equipment and future plans I wouldn't hesitate to install it. My comments are mostly based on a concern that we are putting more and more eggs into the GPS basket and I've been around long enough to know that things happen. Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. 

Skip

[LANCECASPER]

6 hours ago, donkaye said:

I think the GFC 600 with yaw damper runs in the order of 25K for parts alone.  You still need a backup that would have to be added and that backup would need to interface with the GFC 600 to be able to provide automatic baro correction.  The GFC 500 has a TRK mode while the GFC 600 doesn't seem to have that.  The servos of the 600 are about twice as big and twice as heavy as those of the 500 so maybe there wouldn't be the oscillation issue requiring lubing of the control services, but that should be done anyway.  As an educated guess, I would say the installed price of the GFC 600 would approach 40K with the yaw damper.  Then add some type of backup.  After sales of all parts. my installation including yaw damper came to just over 17K.  Assuming sales of parts for the GFC 600, net price would be around 35K (assuming a backup already exists).

So I think a GFC 600 installation would cost nearly double the price of the GFC 500, and TRK mode is available on the GFC 500.

I really think flying the GFC 500 should be done before dismissing its purchase.

On Beechtalk the installed price for the GFC600 on a Beechcraft A36 seems to be around $30,000. (https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=157490&hilit=GFC600)

They don't specify if that was with a yaw damper.  Any IFR panel should have already had a backup attitude indicator so that shouldn't be an additional expense. If Garmin put the Mooney on the AML for the GFC600 and the price for a Mooney was the same as an A36 and there were some parts to sell it might come in around $25,000-$26,000, or perhaps $30,000 with a yaw damper. Considering that the KFC150 had an installed price from Mooney of over $26,000 with altitude pre-select in 1993 dollars,  I don't think that $30,000 net after selling the computer, servos, pre-select, encoding altimeter, etc. is an unreasonable price. The KFC150 was top of the line back then, if I'm going to replace it I would want the same today.

 

N134JF Mooney Invoice 1993.pdf

 

[LANCECASPER]

3 hours ago, khedrei said:

And as mentioned above, you are more likely to lose your old king AP entirely and be stuck hand flying as opposed to losing the GPS and having to use the GFC500 in heading and VS mode. At least I'll still have an AP. 

To say this is a step backwards from an old king AP is talking complete nonsense. 

I think you are off on your statistical predictions on what is more likely. A week ago Friday my King was flying every available approach coupled, the GFC500 would have been flying none of the approaches coupled since the GPS approaches weren't available. The GFC500 is a fine autopilot, I merely mentioned a limitation that it has that I wouldn't be willing to live with. I'm sorry if your King A/P wasn't doing well before you replaced it. I know nothing lasts forever but mine is doing very well and when the day comes to replace it I will. I hope either the Garmin GFC600 or the STEC 3100 is available for Mooneys by then.

[MIm20c]

29 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

I think you are off on your statistical predictions on what is more likely. A week ago Friday my King was flying every available approach coupled, the GFC500 would have been flying none of the approaches coupled since the GPS approaches weren't available.

How many times during the flight did your IFD notify you of a GPS failure?  Available gps approaches does not dictate when the gfc can couple. Having said that I would want to practice that type of failure on approach just to be sure I was ready to take over (controls or knobs). 

[Andy95W]

Seriously, are we all such rotten pilots that our autopilots have to fly coupled approaches or our whole day must go to crap?  

Lance, you could still use the GFC 500 to fly the ILS, but you might have to do it using Heading and Vertical Speed modes.  Oh the Horror! 

[gacoon]

How many of you are aware that the FAA is considering eliminating many ILS in favor of LPV.  Reference latest Aviation Consumer or IFR magazine, cant remember which and dont have access to them now. Part of Nextgen cost cutting, just like VORs a number of ILS are on the chopping block.

[khedrei]

Again, false advertising. GPS outages DONT happen all the time. And I think it's wrong to spread this kind of BS. People sometimes make decisions based on other people's advice and to spreading false information is not fair.

GPS outages do happen but not very often. I certainly believe you that GPS was down for you that day. And perhaps other days. But unless you can come on here and post a topic the other 363 days a year when you fly that GPS is not down, you are misrepresenting the facts and the "limitations" of this auto pilot. 

You never answered my question. If GPS was down and you had your localizer and ILS available to couple to your King AP, would you still go on your trip in IMC using standard equipement only. If your answer is "no" or "probably not" which I'm willing to bet it will be, your point is moot and you should really stop talking about this auto pilot as if it's a step down from your 30 year old KFC150. Because that is simply NOT true. 

Edited February 4, 2020 by khedrei

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, khedrei said:

Again, false advertising. GPS outages DONT happen all the time. And I think it's wrong to spread this kind of BS. People sometimes make decisions based on other people's advice and to spreading false information is not fair.

GPS outages do happen but not very often. I certainly believe you that GPS was down for you that day. And perhaps other days. But unless you can come on here and post a topic the other 363 days a year when you fly that GPS is not down, you are misrepresenting the facts and the "limitations" of this auto pilot. 

You never answered my question. If GPS was down and you had your localizer and ILS available to couple to your King AP, would you still go on your trip in IMC using standard equipement only. If your answer is "no" or "probably not" which I'm willing to bet it will be, your point is moot and you should really stop talking about this auto pilot as if it's a step down from your 30 year old KFC150. Because that is simply NOT true. 

Never saw your question. That's easy, of course I would go on the trip if GPS was down and ILS was available. I went on many trips IMC long before there were GPS approaches.

You may not get them very often in Canada, but most of the members on Mooneyspace are in the U. S. where there are many GPS outages, especially in areas of the Southwest and West U. S. where a lot of military training takes place. They happen around the U. S. on at least a weekly basis, so you can throw away your 363 days a year speculation.

Here are the planned outages this week: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/gps/gpsnotices/GPS_Interference.pdf

There are many more unplanned outages.

[donkaye, MCFI]

1 hour ago, khedrei said:

Again, false advertising. GPS outages DONT happen all the time. And I think it's wrong to spread this kind of BS. People sometimes make decisions based on other people's advice and to spreading false information is not fair.

GPS outages do happen but not very often. I certainly believe you that GPS was down for you that day. And perhaps other days. But unless you can come on here and post a topic the other 363 days a year when you fly that GPS is not down, you are misrepresenting the facts and the "limitations" of this auto pilot. 

You never answered my question. If GPS was down and you had your localizer and ILS available to couple to your King AP, would you still go on your trip in IMC using standard equipement only. If your answer is "no" or "probably not" which I'm willing to bet it will be, your point is moot and you should really stop talking about this auto pilot as if it's a step down from your 30 year old KFC150. Because that is simply NOT true. 

It's a lost cause trying to move people to another point of view who will never move.  I've seen so many of those in my lifetime.  From the time I first tried extolling the benefits of property ownership to my non movable engineering colleagues.  They went on to have to work for the rest of their lives.

[LANCECASPER]

9 hours ago, donkaye said:

It's a lost cause trying to move people to another point of view who will never move.  I've seen so many of those in my lifetime.  From the time I first tried extolling the benefits of property ownership to my non movable engineering colleagues.  They went on to have to work for the rest of their lives.

As I mentioned . . .  the GFC500 is a fine autopilot, but no box is perfect. They all have limitations. I was merely pointing out a limitation that I personally would not be willing to live with. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including me. 

By the way I've never worked for anyone in my life but I'm not sure what that has to do with the limitations of various autopilots.

[LANCECASPER]

9 hours ago, gacoon said:

How many of you are aware that the FAA is considering eliminating many ILS in favor of LPV.  Reference latest Aviation Consumer or IFR magazine, cant remember which and dont have access to them now. Part of Nextgen cost cutting, just like VORs a number of ILS are on the chopping block.

They are pulling VORs, but the ILS is the backup for the GPS network.

[LANCECASPER]

9 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Seriously, are we all such rotten pilots that our autopilots have to fly coupled approaches or our whole day must go to crap?  

Lance, you could still use the GFC 500 to fly the ILS, but you might have to do it using Heading and Vertical Speed modes.  Oh the Horror! 

I agree with all of that, but that has to do with pilot skills which should be kept continually sharp.

However, to build a GPS-required-for-a-coupled-ILS-approach into the autopilot seems like a design flaw or shortfall of the GFC500 to me, since that is not a limitation of the GFC600 or the STEC 3100. But again everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[donkaye, MCFI]

10 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

As I mentioned . . .  the GFC500 is a fine autopilot, but no box is perfect. They all have limitations. I was merely pointed out a limitation that I personally would not be willing to live with. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including me. 

By the way I've never worked for anyone in my life but I'm not sure what that has to do with the limitations of various autopilots.

Lance, you were too quick.  I modified my original post within a couple of minutes because the analogy was too strongly put.  My point was that no one will ever change your point of view regarding the GFC 500, so why try.  It's your loss.

[LANCECASPER]

Just now, donkaye said:

Lance, you were too quick.  I modified my original post within a couple of minutes.  My point was that no one will ever change your point of view regarding the GFC 500, so why try.  It's your loss.

My point of view could easily be changed if Garmin engineered that limitation out the GFC500. They are a brilliant company - I just feel like they could have done better and worked that out before its release.

[Andy95W]

17 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

I agree with all of that, but that has to do with pilot skills which should be kept continually sharp.

However, to build a GPS-required-for-a-coupled-ILS-approach into the autopilot seems like a design flaw or shortfall of the GFC500 to me, since that is not a limitation of the GFC600 or the STEC 3100. But again everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I was a bit harsh in my initial post.  Apologies.

I definitely agree that requiring GPS to fly a coupled ILS approach strikes me as... odd.  Especially when the GFC600 doesn't have that limitation.