Britain AP with G5 HSI

[jetdriven]

The heading signal comes off of the DG or HSI. 

[Yetti]

10 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

The heading signal comes off of the DG or HSI. 

So you are saying that Garmin 400 Series Connector 4006 Pin 5 and 6 are not the same as the signal coming off the DG or HSI?

From Cicilia email

"The Accu-trak system will accept the left/right analog output from nearly any navigational aide, including the Garmin 430 or ARINC 429 (again, just looking for left/right analog output)."

 

B-11 Wiring Schematic.pdf

Edited February 9, 2021 by Yetti

[jetdriven]

Yes, you want to hook pins five and six to the Britain, this particular schematic does not have a heading input. This just sends  needle position to the auto pilot which turns towards the needle to keep it centered. Regardless if you have a G.I. 106 indicator, a G5, or no indicator at all, this function still works because it takes the main output from the navigator to track the magenta line.  
 

Edited February 9, 2021 by jetdriven

[Yetti]

Cool so now we just need a Garmin GDL 29 unit connected to the CAN bus network on the G5.   Then use one of the two ARINC 429 transmitters connected to the Brittain L and R inputs.

The GAD 29 allows the G3X system to interface to IFR navigators such as the GNS and GTN series. The GAD 29 has a 25 pin D-sub connector and a 9 pin D-sub connector. These connectors will provide the following functionality:•2 Low Speed ARINC 429 Transmitters•4 Low Speed ARINC 429 Receivers•1 CAN Network Port.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Yetti

[jetdriven]

It’s not ARINC429 the Britain takes.  It’s the ARINC standard 500mv analog +L and +R.  
429 is a digital data bus 

Edited February 9, 2021 by jetdriven

[Vance Harral]

1 hour ago, Yetti said:

I am still trying to resolve your statement with the 1000s of "navigational equipment"  connected to the Brittain units and installs by competent installers along with many annual inspections unless there has been some change in the regulations that has suddenly made those install illegal.   A garmin 430 can drive a heading indicator no?

No, a garmin 430 cannot legally drive any arbitrary heading indicator.  It can only interface with units for which a specific drawing exists in the installation manual.

Given all the thrash in this thread, I actually dug into the installation manual for the "Brittain Flight Control Installation Instructions 402-731-504 for B-5 System, Nav Flight II System, LSA-4 System, LSA-5 System, LSA-6 System".  This is the governing document for the autopilots in question.  Let's see what it has to say:

First, from section 1.2: All phases of this installation can be accomplished by a qualified A&P mechanic with the exception of the connections to the existing omni system.  These connections and associated checkout must be accomplished by qualified radio technicians.

So the OEM's installation manual specifically requires a radio technician for omni connections, not just any old A&P/IA.

Next, from the "Electrical Schematic", Note 1: Hook-up to omni indicator is across left-right meter terminals for compatibility with specified VOR/ILS makes see sht 21

Sheet 21 turns out to list a bunch of specific CDIs the Brittain units are compatible with.  So no, the installation manual doesn't actually allow interfacing to "any" CDI on the basis of an electrical interface spec; it allows interfacing to a specific list of CDIs.  In other words, I think I was wrong to state that the Brittain can be legally interfaced to any CDI that provides a certain millivolt-level output.  I think legally interfacing to a CDI other than those on sheet 21, requires an additional manufacturer's drawing to do so.  My understanding is that Jerry provided FAA_approved drawings of this sort on request from time to time, for CDIs beyond those in the installation manual.  I don't claim to understand the machinations of how the FAA was involved with these drawings, nor do I claim to understand the certification basis on which the shop that installed our GI-106 indicator connected it to the Brittain.  But they signed it off on their authority as a certified repair shop.

The installation manual for the autopilot doesn't provide any information at all about interfacing it to a DG with heading bug.  Again, this requires a separate OEM drawing to do so.  There are such drawings for specific DGs, I have one that calls out the Century G502A.

Bottom line, an interface spec isn't what makes an installation legal, you need a specific drawing that references the parts in question.  Jerry was working on one for the G5/GAD29B when he passed, but he did not complete it.  If such a drawing is not required, he wouldn't have been going through the effort in the first place.

[Vance Harral]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

The Britain autopilot is driven off the main analog +L and +R outputs.  These generally are sent to a CDI indicator. But the signal is spliced to the Brittain first. So, WRT course tracking, the G5 is irrelevant. 

The analog +L and +R outputs come from the CDI, not from the nav device that is driving the CDI.  At least that's the way it's wired in our airplane.

[Yetti]

31 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

It’s not ARINC429 the Britain takes.  It’s the ARINC standard 500mv analog +L and +R.  
429 is a digital data bus 

Right  G5 -> GDL29 -> GDC31 -> Brittain.  

 

https://dacint.com/products/gdc31/

Mooney is on the GDC31  AML list

https://dacint.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/GDC31-STC-and-AML.pdf

 

https://dacint.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Brittain-Accu-Flite-Model-B-12-with-G502A.pdf

 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Yetti

[Yetti]

accomplished by qualified radio technicians.

 

So where do we find the definition for that in the FAA world?

[jetdriven]

12 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

The analog +L and +R outputs come from the CDI, not from the nav device that is driving the CDI.  At least that's the way it's wired in our airplane.

The signal is generated in the navigator. It is sent to the CDI, which simply indicated full scale needle deflection at 500mv. If you tee the wire off the back of the navigator or the CDi it’s the same thing.   

[carusoam]

10 minutes ago, Yetti said:

accomplished by qualified radio technicians.

 

So where do we find the definition for that in the FAA world?

Add to that...

Who is allowed to connect various boxes with standard inputs and outputs... when the avionics company is unable to provide a document/drawing update...

Typically I seek my A&P for everything...  he has the skills and the training and the experience to make these types of calls...

Best regards,

-a-

[Yetti]

Or apparently this path.

 

[Nukemzzz]

7 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

The signal is generated in the navigator. It is sent to the CDI, which simply indicated full scale needle deflection at 500mv. If you tee the wire off the back of the navigator or the CDi it’s the same thing.   

So pin 5 and 5 right to the VOR instrument?  Do you know if this works with the king 209?  They say the 209a is for GPS because it has a switched VOR converter. Mine doesn’t have the “A” and so I’m not sure if it works with a 430W. 

[Yetti]

4 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Add to that...

Who is allowed to connect various boxes with standard inputs and outputs... when the avionics company is unable to provide a document/drawing update...

Typically I seek my A&P for everything...  he has the skills and the training and the experience to make these types of calls...

Best regards,

-a-

I installed 2 way radios with sign post reporting and then wrote COBOL programs to interface the system to Dispatch for 4 years.  (It was the 1980s)   So I would consider myself a Qualified Radio Technician.   Today I was walking a customer through hooking Cloud Power BI through an OLEDB-Enterprise connection to a proprietary real time data base.   So pretty sure I can connect up 1990s technology in a plane.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Yetti

[Nukemzzz]

3 minutes ago, Yetti said:

I installed 2 way radios with sign post reporting and then wrote COBOL programs to interface the system to Dispatch for 4 years.  (It was the 1980s)   So I would consider myself a Qualified Radio Technician.   Today I was walking a customer through hooking Cloud Power BI through an OLEDB-Enterprise connection to a proprietary real time data base.   So pretty sure I can connect up 1990s technology in a plane.

But did you sleep in a holiday inn express last night?

[carusoam]

Just now, Yetti said:

I installed 2 way radios with sign post reporting and then wrote COBOL programs to interface the system to Dispatch for 4 years.   So I would consider myself a Qualified Radio Technician.   Today I was walking a customer through hooking Cloud Power BI through an OLEDB-Enterprise connection to a proprietary real time data base.   So pretty sure I can connect up 1990s technology in a plane.

I think the sentence about using a radio technician... is the catch all phrase... that allows an individual to seek proper guidance to not spill electrons...

Where proper guidance might be inherent in the A&P, or he might have to defer to his avionics tech partner for that...

I’m pretty sure the Yetti is qualified to do the work... the A&P would be signing that the work is done properly...

It could be as simple as... did they use capital letters with that?  Was that a radio technician or a Radio Technician?

PP guesses only, I usually ask one of the MS avionics guys for interpretation....

Best regards,

-a-

[Vance Harral]

59 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Who is allowed to connect various boxes with standard inputs and outputs... when the avionics company is unable to provide a document/drawing update...

Nobody, unless they apply for and receive a field approval or STC for connecting the boxes in question. That's what the original avionics company does.

My guess is that "qualified radio technician" in the Brittain installation manual refers to a person holding an FAA repairman certificate, employed at a certified repair shop whose certificate covers radio repair and service.  When you have avionics installed at an avionics shop, the entry you get in your logbooks includes the shop's CRS number.

[Vance Harral]

1 hour ago, Yetti said:

So pretty sure I can connect up 1990s technology in a plane.

I'm sure you can, but that's not the topic of discussion.  The topic of discussion is, whose signature is required for the FAA to agree the installation is legal?  Going all the way back to the beginning of this thread, the question is not what will work, but what is required for a legal, certified installation?

Let's try turning this around.  Why do avionics shops that install GPS navigators and autopilots hold a certified repair shop certificate, and employ certified repairmen?  What authority does that convey, and what can the avionics shop do that an A&P/IA who does not hold such a certificate cannot?

[Yetti]

7 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

I'm sure you can, but that's not the topic of discussion.  The topic of discussion is, whose signature is required for the FAA to agree the installation is legal?  Going all the way back to the beginning of this thread, the question is not what will work, but what is required for a legal, certified installation?

Let's try turning this around.  Why do avionics shops that install GPS navigators and autopilots hold a certified repair shop certificate, and employ certified repairmen?  What authority does that convey, and what can the avionics shop do that an A&P/IA who does not hold such a certificate cannot?

Because they are not as progressive as Dynon that allows an IA with appropriate level of experience to sign off on their installs.   Just like every other thing an AP/IA can do with the proper data and proper level of training/experience.   To your question it's anti competitive measures that Garmin takes advantage of to charge higher prices.    Given the number of questions about Garmin installs those protections provide no greater level of quality install.   Because those "qualified radio technicians" are no more careful than the person flying the plane with decades of computer experience in the computer industry.   Much less the FAA inspectors who have even less a clue about data flow and data protocols.  

I feel like there is a glass wall and you like to throw stones against anything you believe in your mind of extended government bureaucracy might be hiding under the bed that could jump out and grab your leg.   There are many others on here that can read the regs and understand them.   We have spent many pages just trying to get the man an answer while you keep throwing the FAR around.    You did the same thing back in the 2017 thread that I found and posted.   Questioning the Brittain's capability to use their Certified Status.   Being part of the solution is always what I try to do.   Roadblocks like you are what I have decades of removing.   Please block me.

[jetdriven]

9 hours ago, Nukemzzz said:

So pin 5 and 5 right to the VOR instrument?  Do you know if this works with the king 209?  They say the 209a is for GPS because it has a switched VOR converter. Mine doesn’t have the “A” and so I’m not sure if it works with a 430W. 

if you have a 209 then, as far as the left-right go. yes.  You run the +L +R (pin 5,6 on the G430W) to pins 10 and 11 on the KI-209.  you tee off these two wires to give the signal to your autopilot. The indicator and the autopilot are wired in parallel.

Edited February 9, 2021 by jetdriven

[Vance Harral]

2 hours ago, Yetti said:

We have spent many pages just trying to get the man an answer while you keep throwing the FAR around.

I think it's both useful and helpful to understand what's required to meet the certification standards, that is also part of the solution.  I've got no objection to a technical discussion proceeding in parallel (and it wouldn't matter if I did, I don't control the board).  Indeed, I've posted a bunch of technical data about Brittain autopilots trying to help others continue using them.  My goal is to be helpful, not to be the "police".

As for your rant about Garmin and the feds, I'm not here to defend them or Brittain or anybody else, just posting my understanding of the certification rules.  Sounds to me like you've got a problem with the existence of the certification rules in the first place - that you think they contribute nothing to safety or usability.  I'm sympathetic to that argument, I share it in many cases.  But on that subject, your beef is with the industry, not me.

One thing I think we can agree on is, most people who engage in grey-area maintenance and upgrade of this sort don't come to any grief because of it.  The philosophy of "I'll do what I want and interpret the rules in whatever way is most beneficial to me", usually works out.  Each owner is free to choose their financial/time risk tolerance in this area, just like they choose their own risk tolerance about the actual safety of what sort of flying to engage in.  I do think a G5 connected to a Brittain autopilot via a GAD29B isn't going to pass muster with any official who actually cares to look, but that's the last I'll say of it.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Vance Harral

[Vance Harral]

12 hours ago, Nukemzzz said:

Do you know if this works with the king 209?

I can also confirm the Brittain will work with a King KI-209 indicator.  That was the #1 nav setup in the airplane when we bought it, and it's still the #2 nav.

Per jetdriven's post above, seems like the hookup to the Brittain can be either from the CDI head or the radio itself.  Ours connects at the CDI.

[Nukemzzz]

3 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

I can also confirm the Brittain will work with a King KI-209 indicator.  That was the #1 nav setup in the airplane when we bought it, and it's still the #2 nav.

Per jetdriven's post above, seems like the hookup to the Brittain can be either from the CDI head or the radio itself.  Ours connects at the CDI.

My question was if I could connect 430W to Brittain if I have a King 209 VOR instead of the 209A.  It's been my understanding that GPS goes to the VOR and then the output from the VOR goes to Brittain...however, Bendix/King website says the 209 isn't for GPS because it has a VOR converter built-in.  The 209A has a switched converter so it can pass through the GPS signal.  Jetdriven is indicates that the 209 (without the A) can accept VOR/LOC signal from 430W and the GPS can output via that signal to the VOR indicator and that signal is like an unconverted VOR Signal.  In effect, the GPS is pretending to be a raw VOR signal from something like my KX155.

From their website:

https://www.bendixking.com/en/products/nc/navigation-and-communication/ki-209a

• "Buy into affordable BendixKing reliability with the multi-tasking KI 209A VOR/LOC/glideslope indicator. It comes with a built-in VOR/LOC converter and GPS switching relays, allowing the pilot to switch back-and-forth easily between the two types of navigation.  This function requires an external selector switch.  Normally, VOR/LOC indicators with built converters cannot be used with GPS systems, as the converter blocks the GPS signal path.  Use it along with an annunciator control unit to meet the FAA requirements for an instrument flight rules GPS installation. The KI 209A also has pendulum indicator needle, VOR/LOC and glideslope warning flags, a to-from indicator, and an omnibearing selector (OBS). It requires an external glideslope receiver for input. "

[Vance Harral]

39 minutes ago, Nukemzzz said:

My question was if I could connect 430W to Brittain if I have a King 209 VOR instead of the 209A

 

It depends on what you mean by "connect the 430W to the Brittain".

If you mean using the the Brittain to track a VOR/ILS course tuned in the 430W's VHF nav radio and indicated on the KI-209, the answer is yes.

If you mean using the Brittain track a GPS course you have programmed in to the 430W, I think the answer is no - you would need the KI-209A to do that.  But I admit confusion, because you said, "In effect, the GPS is pretending to be a raw VOR signal from something like my KX155."  That seems to imply your 430W is connected to your KI-209 (non-A), and yet still is somehow able to display deviation from a GPS course when the 430W is in GPS mode.  I was not aware this is possible, and find several posts on various aviation boards to the contrary, e.g. this one right here on Mooneyspace:

In any case,  if you look at the pinout jetdriven posted above, pins 10 and 11 of the KI-209 are left/right outputs from the CDI, not inputs to the CDI.  The inputs to the CDI from the radio are on other pins.  jetdriven keeps saying you can "tee" off pins 10 and 11 to connect to the Brittain system, but I think that's incorrect - my guess is that if you trace the wiring in your airplane you'll find that pins 10 and 11 of your KI-209 are not connected to your 430W.  Rather, my understanding is that the required autopilot wiring is a chain configuration, like this:

  radio ---(flag/ILS/VOR signals)--> CDI ---(left/right signals)--> Brittain

... not a "tee" configuration like this:

  radio ---(flag/ILS/VOR/left/right signals) -+-> CDI

                                              +-> Brittain

In other words, the Brittain doesn't talk directly to the radio, it can only talk to the CDI.  If I'm right about all that, your 430W doesn't, and can't, "connect" directly to the autopilot.  The autopilot can only receive course guidance from the CDI, and what you're able to do with it is define by the capabilities of the CDI.  In the case of the KI-209 (non-A), I think that means VOR/ILS data only, not GPS.

If I'm wrong, and a KI-209 (non-A) CDI really can show course deviation from a 430W when the 430W is in GPS mode, then I guess you can get the behavior you want.  If so, let us know, I'm always happy to learn new info.

 

 

[Nukemzzz]

10 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

 

It depends on what you mean by "connect the 430W to the Brittain".

If you mean using the the Brittain to track a VOR/ILS course tuned in the 430W's VHF nav radio and indicated on the KI-209, the answer is yes.

If you mean using the Brittain track a GPS course you have programmed in to the 430W, I think the answer is no - you would need the KI-209A to do that.  But I admit confusion, because you said, "In effect, the GPS is pretending to be a raw VOR signal from something like my KX155."  That seems to imply your 430W is connected to your KI-209 (non-A), and yet still is somehow able to display deviation from a GPS course when the 430W is in GPS mode.  I was not aware this is possible, and find several posts on various aviation boards to the contrary, e.g. this one right here on Mooneyspace:

In any case,  if you look at the pinout jetdriven posted above, pins 10 and 11 of the KI-209 are left/right outputs from the CDI, not inputs to the CDI.  The inputs to the CDI from the radio are on other pins.  jetdriven keeps saying you can "tee" off pins 10 and 11 to connect to the Brittain system, but I think that's incorrect - my guess is that if you trace the wiring in your airplane you'll find that pins 10 and 11 of your KI-209 are not connected to your 430W.  Rather, my understanding is that the required autopilot wiring is a chain configuration, like this:

  radio ---(flag/ILS/VOR signals)--> CDI ---(left/right signals)--> Brittain

... not a "tee" configuration like this:

  radio ---(flag/ILS/VOR/left/right signals) -+-> CDI

                                              +-> Brittain

In other words, the Brittain doesn't talk directly to the radio, it can only talk to the CDI.  If I'm right about all that, your 430W doesn't, and can't, "connect" directly to the autopilot.  The autopilot can only receive course guidance from the CDI, and what you're able to do with it is define by the capabilities of the CDI.  In the case of the KI-209 (non-A), I think that means VOR/ILS data only, not GPS.

If I'm wrong, and a KI-209 (non-A) CDI really can show course deviation from a 430W when the 430W is in GPS mode, then I guess you can get the behavior you want.  If so, let us know, I'm always happy to learn new info.

 

 

To clarify, I don't have a 430W yet...I'm considering adding it or a 530W.  I have a King 209 an KX-155 currently.  I want to add GPS Capability to my 66E and the 430/530 seem like the best option as far as getting the IFR capability into the plane without having the avionics cost exceed the current value of the plane.  lol  

I'm trying to find out if I need to swap out the 209 for something else and want to keep the Brittain Accutrac going.