What's the gameplan when Garmin no longer supports the G1000

[Louis21]

Hi,

Thanks a lot to have brought this topic .

I am really interested in buying a 2005 Mooney Ovation but am concerned about the future of the Garmin G1000. Any update on this matter?

 

[LANCECASPER]

3 hours ago, Louis21 said:

Hi,

Thanks a lot to have brought this topic .

I am really interested in buying a 2005 Mooney Ovation but am concerned about the future of the Garmin G1000. Any update on this matter?

 

There are a lot of G1000 airplanes of many different brands out there. Garmin still offers exchange units if a GDU goes bad. Plus there are salvage airplanes that are being parted out. I wouldn't lose any sleep over keeping the airplane flying for the next 20 years.

What should be your biggest concern is whether the one you're looking at has been upgraded to WAAS. There were a much more limited number of GIA63W units made.  If not you should definitely budget an extra $35,000 to spend immediately after purchase. Not doing so will not only limit your airplane but will seriously limit its marketability when that day comes. 

[Schllc]

On 2/26/2024 at 4:26 PM, Pinecone said:

I heard that a number of owners got together and offered to fund the work just to get their planes done.  Mooney was not interested.

I don’t know about a group,  but myself with an acclaim and another friend with an ovation, both planes had waas,  offered Johnny to pay 100% of the costs incurred to upgrade both.  This would help Mooney establish a baseline cost, and then refund us only the portion of the costs over the published prices, slowly over time as the mod was sold. 
He said he would consider it, but that  was the last I ever heard from him.  That was about three years ago. 
For this to get any traction, a group of people would literally have to pool some cash deposits and kind of force the issue. And by group I believe it would have to be at least 50 to get their attention. Let’s assume it would be 35k. If 50 people put 35k together in escrow and showed Mooney a contract for $1,750,000, I’m sure Mooney would respond. 
Then those funds could be released in stages with a lottery style drawing for whose went first.   
Lots of ways to get it done,  but every one of them has Mooney in the middle. 
If someone remembers Jonny’s handle maybe they can ping him with this, but I doubt he ever looks at the site anymore. 
 

[LANCECASPER]

28 minutes ago, Schllc said:

I don’t know about a group,  but myself with an acclaim and another friend with an ovation, both planes had waas,  offered Johnny to pay 100% of the costs incurred to upgrade both.  This would help Mooney establish a baseline cost, and then refund us only the portion of the costs over the published prices, slowly over time as the mod was sold. 
He said he would consider it, but that  was the last I ever heard from him.  That was about three years ago. 
For this to get any traction, a group of people would literally have to pool some cash deposits and kind of force the issue. And by group I believe it would have to be at least 50 to get their attention. Let’s assume it would be 35k. If 50 people put 35k together in escrow and showed Mooney a contract for $1,750,000, I’m sure Mooney would respond. 
Then those funds could be released in stages with a lottery style drawing for whose went first.   
Lots of ways to get it done,  but every one of them has Mooney in the middle. 
If someone remembers Jonny’s handle maybe they can ping him with this, but I doubt he ever looks at the site anymore. 
 

@Jonny

[EricJ]

FWIW, Garmin still makes the G1000, and it is still being delivered in new airplanes.   I don't know what the compatibility issues may or may not be with older G1000s and new replacement parts, because there is definitely an evolution there, but Garmin or a Garmin dealer should be useful there.   In other words, if a component of an older G1000 needs to be replaced or updated, that may still be possible.   If I were considering purchasing an aircraft with an older G1000, I'd look at that.     We recently replaced a G1000 MFD in a 2015 C182 that I help with occasionally and the shop that did it just ordered the part and replaced it.   Not cheap, but definitely doable.   I don't know how much worse it might or might not be for a 2005.

 

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

FWIW, Garmin still makes the G1000, and it is still being delivered in new airplanes.   I don't know what the compatibility issues may or may not be with older G1000s and new replacement parts, because there is definitely an evolution there, but Garmin or a Garmin dealer should be useful there.   In other words, if a component of an older G1000 needs to be replaced or updated, that may still be possible.   If I were considering purchasing an aircraft with an older G1000, I'd look at that.     We recently replaced a G1000 MFD in a 2015 C182 that I help with occasionally and the shop that did it just ordered the part and replaced it.   Not cheap, but definitely doable.   I don't know how much worse it might or might not be for a 2005.

 

Any legal way to just rip it all out, and start over?

[kortopates]

The factory staffing level has deteriorated to the point that they lost their ability to modify the type certificate. They’ll have to get a new serious infusion of capital or new ownership with $ to staff up before they can tackle such a project.
For now they can only produce parts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1980Mooney]

6 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Any legal way to just rip it all out, and start over?

You could tell the FAA that you are developing an STC and put the plane into the Experimental Research and Development category.  Of course you would never be able to sell your plane.  Probably could not get insurance either.  Take the risk and the write off - and probably don't carry pax....  That would definitely be "starting over".

[midlifeflyer]

On 2/26/2024 at 12:08 PM, Pinecone said:

The problem is, Mooney holds the TC, that includes the G1000.  So MOONEY needs to create the upgrade path to NXi.  Yes, working with Garmin.  But Garmin cannot do it without Mooney involvement.  And Mooney doesn't have the money to do this.

Exactly the problem. The lack of an upgrade (and in many cases even an update) path because it’s controlled by an airframe manufacturer that can’t or won’t approve it. As mentioned, it’s not limited to Mooney. And it’s not even limited to replacement.

It’s not something I’ve ever looked into from a regulatory perspective, but can one, for example, trash the G1000 altogether and put in something that is STC’d for  the equivalent non-G1000 model?  Something that only involves money and can be upgraded as one wishes. 

[N201MKTurbo]

It seems like a good case for a field approval. There is plenty of approved data out there to hang your hat on.

[201Mooniac]

Just curious, other than contractual reasons, is there a reason that Garmin couldn't provide an NXi upgrade with an STC?

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

It seems like a good case for a field approval. There is plenty of approved data out there to hang your hat on.

That'd be my thought.   Likewise a DER, if needed, shouldn't have too much trouble working from the usual installation manual.

There's always a way to do it, and I suspect the DER/approval wouldn't be a huge expense compared to the avionics and installation.

[kortopates]

Good luck finding a FSDO that would entertain signing off a field approval to replace a fully supported G1000 Mooney, simply because it’s not upgradable.
Don Maxwell has been talking about getting an STC to replace a G1000 installation for years - don’t know if he’s put much effort into it.
Someday i think it will happen but probably not likely as long as Garmin is still supporting them.
It’s really not a bad system but limited without WAAS. But even there new owners are finding GIA-63W’s to do the upgrade.
But an Nxi upgrade isn’t even remotely possible for now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[midlifeflyer]

2 hours ago, kortopates said:

It’s really not a bad system but limited without WAAS. But even there new owners are finding GIA-63W’s to do the upgrade

Unfortunately, it's not just about WAAS. Being an OEM product has other effects. Some are differences in presentation which is no big deal, but other are substance. I haven't flown with the Mooney flavor but, for example, it you compare the same vintage G1000 from a DA40 and a Cessna, you'll find the Cessna has more capability. The reason is software updates Cessna OK'd which Diamond didn't.

I'll try not to rant but while I very much enjoy flying G1000, I'd hesitate buying an airplane with one.

[kortopates]

3 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Unfortunately, it's not just about WAAS. Being an OEM product has other effects. Some are differences in presentation which is no big deal, but other are substance. I haven't flown with the Mooney flavor but, for example, it you compare the same vintage G1000 from a DA40 and a Cessna, you'll find the Cessna has more capability. The reason is software updates Cessna OK'd which Diamond didn't.

I'll try not to rant but while I very much enjoy flying G1000, I'd hesitate buying an airplane with one.

Of course I totally agree. My comments where from the perspective of getting a field approval from the FAA for a G1000 that is still supported. I don't see the FAA sticking their neck to approve a replacement suite for G1000 without going through the STC process - which is neither cheap nor quick.

But with respect to the G1000 version that Mooney chose to certify they have pretty much always chosen earlier versions that latter version with more functionality. For example when they offered a WAAS upgrade they picked the version that had the issue with about 160 LP approaches that couldn't be loaded because they had a zero VDA that broke that version of the WAAS. These days they are back to non-zero VDAs so I think that resolved itself over time. There where other limitation with Weather I recall too. 

But I agree with you, I'd rather keep my state of art upgradeable avionics that are not tied to the TCDS to be able to update.

[Pinecone]

Why can't you rip out the G1000 and install G3X/G5-TXi, GTNs, GTX, GFC-500, etc under THOSE STCs?

[kortopates]

Why can't you rip out the G1000 and install G3X/G5-TXi, GTNs, GTX, GFC-500, etc under THOSE STCs?

Simple, the STC is not approved for G1000 equipped aircraft.

https://static.garmin.com/pumac/sa01899wi_aml_03.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pinecone]

OK, but what would stop Garmin from expanding the AML to allow it to replace a G1000 system?   

For many G1000 aircraft, I see that they do not want to compete with the Manufacturer, but in the case of orphan aircraft, where there is no path to upgrade, it would make sense for them to sell modern avionics for those aircraft.

[EricJ]

43 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

OK, but what would stop Garmin from expanding the AML to allow it to replace a G1000 system?   

For many G1000 aircraft, I see that they do not want to compete with the Manufacturer, but in the case of orphan aircraft, where there is no path to upgrade, it would make sense for them to sell modern avionics for those aircraft.

The AML includes M20L, M20M, M20R and M20S.    The note says "Excluding aircraft equipped with G1000".   If you uninstall the G1000, I think it would not be unreasonable to say the AML includes those aircraft.    If somebody thinks additional approval is required, the STC data for those aircraft would likely get you close enough that a DER (or not) for a field approval would not be missing much, so I would not expect the expense of developing the data for the aircraft to be excessive.   I've recently seen seeing FSDOs (including our local one) encouraging field approvals, so it might be worth trying.  I don't see a regulatory barrier here.

[LANCECASPER]

20 minutes ago, EricJ said:

The AML includes M20L, M20M, M20R and M20S.    The note says "Excluding aircraft equipped with G1000".   If you uninstall the G1000, I think it would not be unreasonable to say the AML includes those aircraft.    If somebody thinks additional approval is required, the STC data for those aircraft would likely get you close enough that a DER (or not) for a field approval would not be missing much, so I would not expect the expense of developing the data for the aircraft to be excessive.   I've recently seen seeing FSDOs (including our local one) encouraging field approvals, so it might be worth trying.  I don't see a regulatory barrier here.

The G1000 is on the Type Certificate for all G1000 Mooneys, so wouldn't you need a Supplemental Type Certificate?

[EricJ]

20 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

The G1000 is on the Type Certificate for all G1000 Mooneys, so wouldn't you need a Supplemental Type Certificate?

Or a field approval.    You can change anything with a field approval.   People have changed engines with field approvals.   Since L, M, R and S models are listed on the G3X AML the approved data already exists.

[LANCECASPER]

1 minute ago, EricJ said:

Or a field approval.    You can change anything with a field approval.   People have changed engines with field approvals.

In years past there were a lot of field approvals. But that would be one brave FSDO employee to be the first one to do that in today's FAA. Even if it is legal I don't see anyone putting their career on the line with that signature. 

I also don't see what there would be to gain as the aircraft owner. It is always the people that are shopping or don't have G1000s that discuss this and are concerned about it. Would the installed GFC700 be part of the G1000 removal? I love the integration of the G1000 and have to admit that until I flew with it I wasn't a fan. Since I've flown with it I wouldn't think about taking it out.

[EricJ]

23 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

In years past there were a lot of field approvals. But that would be one brave FSDO employee to be the first one to do that in today's FAA. Even if it is legal I don't see anyone putting their career on the line with that signature. 

I also don't see what there would be to gain as the aircraft owner. It is always the people that are shopping or don't have G1000s that discuss this and are concerned about it. Would the installed GFC700 be part of the G1000 removal? I love the integration of the G1000 and have to admit that until I flew with it I wasn't a fan. Since I've flown with it I wouldn't think about taking it out.

Field approvals happen all the time.   Our local FSDO has been encouraging them, and I've heard that from reps from other FSDOs as well. 

The older G1000s are not well supported as evidenced by the difficulty of adding WAAS.   I fly fairly regularly behind various G1000 systems including old stuff and newer NXi stuff, and compared to the newer stuff like the G3X I find the user interface  of the G1000 extremely clunky.   Some who use both find the GFC500 to be a much better autopilot than the GFC700.   I totally understand somebody wanting to upgrade from an older G1000 to a newer system, whatever it might be.