Print Page | Close Window

Garmin G5 and IFD 540

Printed From: Avidyne
Category: Avidyne General
Forum Name: IFD 5 Series & IFD 4 Series Touch Screen GPS/NAV/COM
Forum Description: Topics on Avidyne's IFD 5 Series and IFD 4 Series Touch Screen GPS/NAV/COM
URL: http://forums.avidyne.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1267
Printed Date: 22 Jul 2018 at 1:08am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Garmin G5 and IFD 540
Posted By: Flying_Monkey
Subject: Garmin G5 and IFD 540
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2017 at 9:44am
With the recent announcement of the Garmin G5 being certified for use as a digital HSI I was wondering if the IFD540 can be used as the GPS and CDI/VOR source for the G5 and still meet the requirements of the STC? Am considering a dual G5 setup and am putting in a 540.



Replies:
Posted By: AviSimpson
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2017 at 11:51am
First, welcome to the forum!!

As far as the G5 goes, since it was just announced yesterday, it's way too early to tell. Garmin lists the 530 and 430 as compatible inputs so there's a good chance we could send it data. Additionally, Garmin likely didn't list the IFDs in their STC so we would have to list it in our Install Manual, which doesn't happen overnight, unfortunately.


-------------
Simpson Bennett
Avidyne Corporation
Product Manager


Posted By: Flying_Monkey
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2017 at 6:41pm
How long do you realistically think it will take to sort this out one way or another? Days? Weeks? Months? I'm right smack in the middle of panel redo and just want to be able to make a decision. It won't be done for another month or two....


Posted By: bneub111
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2017 at 7:55am
I'm interested also. I've had a 540 for a couple of years. My AI and DG are old and my vacuum pump is getting quite a few hours on it. I will most likely install one or two G5's as those items fail.


Posted By: AviSimpson
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2017 at 8:26am
Since they said they aren't shipping it until May, I think it's safe to say that it will be months before we know. Adding it to the install manual will not happen in the next few months.

-------------
Simpson Bennett
Avidyne Corporation
Product Manager


Posted By: DH82FLYER
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2017 at 9:11am
The Garmin G5 requires the MapMx RS232 protocol for the external GPS connection. The IFD's can output this protocol and therefore will work with the G5. However the 'paperwork' for this connection is another matter.

The other option is to use the G5's internal GPS, either via it's own internal antenna or via a separate external GPS antenna. I have seen a number of installations using the internal antenna quite succesfully. Also, using the internal GPS is a more robust, redundant pathway. Finally, it's allowable to connect both internal and external GPS's to the one G5. In this situation the unit defaults to the internal GPS but if that subsequently fails it reverts to the external source.
Lots of choices.

Thomas


Posted By: Gring
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2017 at 9:28am
The problem with the G5 in either the HSI or PDF format is that it will not connect to an autopilot.  So, if you have a King or Century autopilot that requires attitude information to drive it, it is a no go.  Most autopilots use the HSI to drive it so, it will be a no go there.

I also think the G5 may kill the GI106 because as a secondary nav head, not driving an autopilot, the cost is very similar and I'd rather have the G5.




Posted By: paulr
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2017 at 12:00pm
I thought the same thing-- I happen to have a GNC255 as COM2 but my CDI doesn't have glideslope, so replacing it with a G5 would give me some useful capacity even if I can't drive the AP with it.


Posted By: DH82FLYER
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2017 at 6:19pm
Originally posted by Gring Gring wrote:

The problem with the G5 in either the HSI or PDF format is that it will not connect to an autopilot.  So, if you have a King or Century autopilot that requires attitude information to drive it, it is a no go.  Most autopilots use the HSI to drive it so, it will be a no go there.

.......

Yes, autopilot connectivity is a limitation at present. However Garmin has given big hints in the last 24hrs, that they are working on the issue, especially for analog legacy autopilots. I believe these G5 instruments will be be hugely popular, as they are going to provide a relatively cheap entry into glass cockpits. From a competition point of view, it's a real pity that Avidyne appears to have 'missed the boat' for low cost glass instrumentation and finally, if I was Aspen, I would be very worried.


Posted By: bneub111
Date Posted: 02 Apr 2017 at 12:20am
Originally posted by AviSimpson AviSimpson wrote:

Since they said they aren't shipping it until May, I think it's safe to say that it will be months before we know. Adding it to the install manual will not happen in the next few months.


From what I understand, the G5 units are all the same, can be used as an AI or HSI, and are currently available. In theory, Avidyne wouldn't need to wait until the HSI STC'd units ship to start the process...


Posted By: Flying_Monkey
Date Posted: 19 May 2017 at 4:39pm
Any update on G5/Avidyne 540 compatibility?  Have the HSI enabled G5 units started shipping?


Posted By: DH82FLYER
Date Posted: 19 May 2017 at 6:02pm
Yes it's available....
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/in/efis_garmin/garmin_g5_dghsi.php" rel="nofollow - G5 HSI at Aircraft Spruce


Posted By: paulr
Date Posted: 22 May 2017 at 6:44am
Nope. Garmin said they would start shipping these in mid-June. The Aircraft Spruce web site has them listed but if you add one to your cart, you'll see that it's marked as "NO STOCK - CALL".


Posted By: Flying_Monkey
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2017 at 12:38am
Originally posted by AviSimpson AviSimpson wrote:

First, welcome to the forum!!

As far as the G5 goes, since it was just announced yesterday, it's way too early to tell. Garmin lists the 530 and 430 as compatible inputs so there's a good chance we could send it data. Additionally, Garmin likely didn't list the IFDs in their STC so we would have to list it in our Install Manual, which doesn't happen overnight, unfortunately.

Any progress or update on this?  Surely I am not the only one asking for it!


Posted By: paulr
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2017 at 7:27am
Garmin actually received the STC for the HSI version earlier this week, but I'm not sure if they're shipping yet. Still no word on autopilot pickoff, although rumor has it that they will announce something about autopilot integration at Oshkosh. I too am super interested to hear what Avidyne has to say about integrating these with the IFD540.

Right now, my NAV2 is a GNC255, and its indicator is lateral-only. I'd happily put in the HSI version of the G5, drive it from the GNC255, and get both an HSI and glideslope. But then if I wait juuuuust a little longer, maybe I can also replace my AI and lose its dependency on the vacuum system. Decisions, decisions...


Posted By: AviSimpson
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2017 at 9:56am
Originally posted by Flying_Monkey Flying_Monkey wrote:

Originally posted by AviSimpson AviSimpson wrote:

First, welcome to the forum!!

As far as the G5 goes, since it was just announced yesterday, it's way too early to tell. Garmin lists the 530 and 430 as compatible inputs so there's a good chance we could send it data. Additionally, Garmin likely didn't list the IFDs in their STC so we would have to list it in our Install Manual, which doesn't happen overnight, unfortunately.

Any progress or update on this?  Surely I am not the only one asking for it!
Don't call me https://youtu.be/ixljWVyPby0?t=1m5s" rel="nofollow - surely ....

No update to share. Like I said before, if it were to be supported it would have to wait for a software release and much of the next software release is spoken for. We haven't received a lot of requests to date, but with it just gaining the STC that might change.


-------------
Simpson Bennett
Avidyne Corporation
Product Manager


Posted By: Gring
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2017 at 10:15am
I think Garmin came out and said that there were no plans for autopilot integration in the G5 at this time.


Posted By: pburger
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2017 at 11:24am
I am definitely interested in the G5 as an HSI, but I would need to know that it is compatible with the IFD-540.


Posted By: comancheguy
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2017 at 12:39pm
This needs to move up near the top of the list.     IMHO. 


Posted By: Flying_Monkey
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2017 at 1:18pm
I think most of us really want to get rid of our vacuum systems. A couple G5s is a great way to do this and the only thing stopping me from doing this now is that I chose to go with Avidyne 540 over a Garmin unit.  I really hope you guys get on board with this and try to make it happen quickly.  The GA community seems really interested in lower cost electronic, solid state attitude indicators etc and there is a lot of excitement over the G5 units.  


Posted By: DH82FLYER
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2017 at 7:30am
Originally posted by Gring Gring wrote:


I think Garmin came out and said that there were no plans for autopilot integration in the G5 at this time.



Garmin has stated that an autopilot heading bug on the G5 HSI is a possibility. However, they then said that G5 AI autopilot integration is unlikely at this time, due to a lack of support from the FAA for such a move.


Posted By: compasst
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2017 at 4:33pm
To AviSimpson - I am requesting IFD 540 support for G5 devices. My Cardinal doesn't have autopilot and may not get it since it is a very stable airplane and I am happy without the autopilot for my IFR flying. I wish to replace my aged vacuum system instrumentation and would prefer to go digital with the G5 devices rather than go with Aspen or other electronic alternatives.

G5 communications support, please.


Posted By: ronl
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2017 at 8:05pm
Originally posted by compasst compasst wrote:

would prefer to go digital with the G5 devices rather than go with Aspen or other electronic alternatives.

G5 communications support, please.


Why the preference for G5? Just curious.

-------------
Ron L


Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2017 at 9:19pm
Yes, putting in two G5s (AI + HSI) is neither cost nor function efficient. A VFR ASPEN makes a lot more sense in that scenario, and is upgradeable to full PFD/MFD function.

* Orest



Posted By: paulr
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 10:52am
I'm not sure I agree with this. Purchase cost is probably close to a wash; Aspen says (http://www.aspenavionics.com/pdf/Feature%20Comparison_FF.pdf) the list price of the VFR PFD + the ACU is $5995, and Garmin's selling 2x G5 for around the same price. My understanding is that the VFR Aspen would cost significantly more to install. On top of that, 2x G5s gives you reversionary capability that I don't think you get from a single Aspen.

It's true that the IFR-unlocked Aspen has many additional capabilities missing from the G5s, including the ability to drive an analog autopilot and integrated GPSS through the ACU. You also get air data, which the G5 doesn't have (but I could get it with a $1000 ADC added to the IFD). The feature comparison chart I linked above says that the stock VFR PFD can't act as an HSI at all, and it doesn't include vertical or lateral deviation indicators either. In terms of utility, to me that makes the VFR Aspen much less useful than the G5s for the kind of flying I do. That changes the equation: now I'd be looking at at roughly $10K + install for either the VFR + the Pro upgrade or the Pro itself vs $5K + install for the G5s. For double the capital cost of the G5s, you get autopilot integration, plus some other unlockable features (synvis, wx/traffic, etc) that I probably wouldn't bother with since I have an IFD540.

Take this with a grain of salt, as I haven't flown with either an Aspen or a G5. I have about 150hrs behind the G1000, though, so I'm a glass believer, but I just don't see the value advantage for the Aspen. 

What am I missing?


Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 11:04am
To me, it is the ultimate upgradeability of the ASPEN that lends a lot of value to its choice. 

Which way makes more sense for a given user, would be largely determined by their future plans and needs.

* Orest



Posted By: paulr
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 11:06am
Fair point. But at least for me, in the airplane I fly now, there is very little likelihood that I will invest in XM wx, active traffic, or a Stormscope. Those, along with EHA, are the primary expansion capabilities the Aspen offers beyond the ability to go VFR->IFR so the value's not there for me. Now, if I win the lottery, you betcha I'd put an Aspen in my panel ASAP.


Posted By: pburger
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 11:29am
paulr - I think you're right on track with your analysis.  The G5's really look attractive to me.  If I knew for sure that it would play with the IFD, I'd probably buy one at Oshkosh this year.  I'd start with the HSI, and then maybe do the AI later.


Posted By: pburger
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 11:34am
compasst --

I'm not sure if you are aware, but the TruTrak autopilot has an STC for 172's (F thru R) and the 177.  If I had a Cardinal, I'd jump on that. I think the total price is going to be around $5K + installation.  The PA28 series is coming soon (later this year hopefully), and I plan to put one in my Arrow.

And the Trio autopilot is going down a parallel path, and has an STC for the 172/182, with the PA28 series hopefully in the works, too.


Posted By: compasst
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 1:27pm
Thanks for the responses from all of you. My answers - 

I've flown several aircraft with the Aspen devices in them. EVERY airplane had Aspen issues - and all continue to have them, varying from HI being incorrect to complete failure AFTER being fixed and factory reman replacement. Every one of them has been worked on to fix the issues and every one of them still has issues. Latest airplane had many issues with the Aspen in it - and the Aspen failed completely in IFR conditions - I had to rely on ForeFlight AHRS to get me to the airport. Yes, it had backup panel, but that, too, was incorrect and flaky. I was relocating this airplane for a broker. The plane had just been in active 135 operations. 

Yes, Aspen is having a great sale - but not great enough for me to go with the numerous product reliability issues I have witnessed first hand. And, I find the display too compact and cluttered for my needs. After many hours flying this product, I find that it does not suit my needs well.

My airplane is IFR - so a VFR Aspen is not an option.

Although not needed, the autopilot option is possible if/when low cost device that integrates with IFD and does full GPSS and glidepath tracking becomes viable and has some track record in the field. 


Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 4:46pm
Originally posted by pburger pburger wrote:

compasst --

I'm not sure if you are aware, but the TruTrak autopilot has an STC for 172's (F thru R) and the 177. 

My understanding is that the STC only installs provisions for an autopilot.  Actual installation and activation of the autopilot is still in the future.


Posted By: chflyer
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 5:13pm
David, I'm not following you. An autopilot with an STC that only provisions for an autopilot sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.... what does the STC really approve? Or in other words, what is the point of installing an instrument that doesn't have any approval to do anything? Or am I missing something?



-------------
Vince


Posted By: pburger
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2017 at 10:41pm
I guess I'm guilty of hijacking this thread, because I brought up TruTrak.  Yes, the install kits for the 172 and 177 are approved and available now.  The full system approval is on track to be ready for Oshkosh.

Here is the latest update from Andrew Barker from June 6, 2017:

It has been a while since I have given you all an update on how things are going, so here you go! :-)

Things are moving forward very well in the weeks since Sun N Fun when we received approval of the installation kit for the C172 and C177.  We are also currently working on installation design for the C182 and PA-28.

The majority of our time is being spent on finalization of the paperwork and flight testing required for the full system approval.  We are still very much on track to have that all completed in time to begin deliveries at AirVenture.  These are probably cumbersome and fairly boring details as far as most of you are concerned, but they are actually quite important!

On May 25th we did another flight with the FAA demonstrating failure modes and some more normal use modes of the Vizion autopilot system.  This was done in our C172 with special failure mode software installed in the autopilot.  We also were able to show them, for the first time, our TOP SECRET new feature that will be included in the Vizion system at launch in July!  They absolutely loved the feature and are very excited about it’s inclusion in the final product.  

One of our main reasons for wanting to offer the Vizion to the certified market is to improve the safety of the existing fleet.  Because of the way the Vizion autopilot is designed, the failure modes that we demonstrated to the FAA actually require multiple failures to even be possible, but we wanted to make sure that we tested and demonstrated things in the absolute worst case scenario.  During this flight we demonstrated things such as dual max servo velocity hard over failures, servo lockups, and gyro / pressure transducer failures.  Through ALL of these tests, the aircraft remains quite flyable and in the “real world” the autopilot will actually recognize these failures and automatically disconnect.  

I think that is all for now, looking forward to seeing you all in Oshkosh. 

As always, please share this email with anyone that you know that is not on the list and should be!


Posted By: ronl
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2017 at 12:09am
compasst,
Your experience with poor reliability in Aspens is surprising to me. I've had an Aspen EFD1000 in my plane for over 5 years and never had a problem with it. I've (perhaps erroneously) always considered them quite reliable.

-------------
Ron L


Posted By: LANCE
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2017 at 12:59am
Originally posted by ronl ronl wrote:

compasst,
Your experience with poor reliability in Aspens is surprising to me. I've had an Aspen EFD1000 in my plane for over 5 years and never had a problem with it. I've (perhaps erroneously) always considered them quite reliable.

I have a friend who owns an avionics shop and he said they have 100's of Aspen installations and very few problems. In the few problems they've had the company has been very responsive.


Posted By: MarkZ
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2017 at 7:50am
I like my Aspens but they are intolerant of any kind of static leak.


Posted By: ronl
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2017 at 8:25am
Originally posted by MarkZ MarkZ wrote:

I like my Aspens but they are intolerant of any kind of static leak.


Yes. IMO this is the Achilles heel of the Aspen PFD system. It's not all bad though, this is how I justified upgrading to the IFD550. :-)

From the Aspen EFD1000 pilot guide:

"4.1.2. Pitot Obstruction Monitor
Most light aircraft have only a single pitot and static system available for ight instrument use. As such, a common pitot and static input is shared between the PFD and analog standby instruments. Should one or both of these pitot and static lines become blocked, both the PFD and any standby airspeed and altitude indicators could display erroneous airspeed and altitude information. Furthermore, because the PFD uses pitot and static pressures as part of the AHRS attitude calculations, loss or corruption of the pitot or static pressures can also in uence the accuracy of the displayed attitude information.
The PFD has been tested to be robust to these failures, either by being tolerant to incorrect pitot or static inputs or by detecting and annunciating a degraded attitude solution. When connected to an IFR-certi ed GPS, the system is further able to detect and annunciate blockages in the pitot system and will fail the attitude solution before it becomes degraded. In that case, the system will red X the attitude and heading information and display a CHECK PITOT HEAT message as a reminder to the pilot to check for ice accumulating on the pitot probe.
Once the system detects that the pitot obstruction has been cleared, the CHECK PITOT HEAT annunciation is removed and the system automatically performs an AHRS in- ight reset.
Should a GPS failure be experienced in ight, the Pitot Obstruction Monitor continues to operate in a fail-safe mode and will continue to detect obstructions in the pitot system that may occur while airborne. However, after landing, the monitor remains active and as the airplane slows to taxi speeds, the system will indicate a failure of the AHRS and annunciate CHECK PITOT HEAT. In this circumstance, restoring the GPS will restore normal monitor operation.
CHAPTER 4 REFERENCE GUIDE
In summary, loss or degradation of the PFD attitude solution is unlikely if the pilot assures the proper operation of the pitot-static system. If the pitot or static system become blocked, an ADAHRS internal sensor fails, or a CROSS CHECK ATTITUDE indication is frequent or persists, the attitude indication on the PFD should be considered compromised. In this case, the pilot must use the backup attitude indicator for attitude reference until the cause of the problem has been ideate ed and resolved and normal system operation has been restored."

-------------
Ron L


Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2017 at 8:57am
The BIG RED Xs with a pitot-static failure is the bane of the ASPEN, and the G500 actually. It flows from certification issues.

When I was shopping for a backup AI, I was very careful to ensure it also didn't suffer from this. I got the Sandia Quattro. It will not red X, instead it will go into a downgraded mode (with an annunciation) when there is a loss of pitot static availability, it will continue to function and show attitude.

As far as the reliability for the ASPENs, they have been rock solid. No issues in some six years or so. My shop puts in a ton of them.

* Orest





Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2017 at 10:11am
For backup attitude indication, it actually is very hard to match the separation-redundancy of a spinning gyro powered by an air or vacuum source.

A mechanical instrument can't share any failure mode with an electronic system.

Aircraft with truly redundant electrical systems (two alternators, two regulators, two batteries, two busses) carry more system weight than a single electrical system plus a single vacuum system.

I'm all for primary electronic displays, but I'll stay mechanical for my backups, thanks.


Posted By: comancheguy
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2017 at 2:57pm
Hear Hear!   I want an aspen or a G5 for Primary.  But, I'll be keeping the Vacuum pump / AI. 


Posted By: Gring
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2017 at 4:31pm
I spent the money and purchased an L3 ESI500 for my backup. It works great and had localizer and glideslope on it so you have everything on one stand by gauge.


Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2017 at 4:55pm
Originally posted by Gring Gring wrote:

I spent the money and purchased an L3 ESI500 for my backup. It works great and had localizer and glideslope on it so you have everything on one stand by gauge.

Was considering that, after you mentioned it. But at the time had to make it happen quick, and they had a Sandia in stock.

Is there VSI on the ESI500?

* Orest



Posted By: Gring
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2017 at 7:27pm
There is VSI, track (heading optional with a magnetometer), optional Synthetic Vision.  It's really nice AND certified as primary or backup to G500/600 and Aspen.

The Sandia Quattro technically is not approved with Aspen due to the certification standard and how it degrades with the loss of air speed.


Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2017 at 8:17pm
Originally posted by Gring Gring wrote:

The Sandia Quattro technically is not approved with Aspen due to the certification standard and how it degrades with the loss of air speed.

The Quatro will continue functioning, even with the pitot out, and the ASPEN red X'd. My shop had no issues using it.

* Orest



Posted By: Gring
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2017 at 9:08pm
Yes, but read the detail in the Aspen install manual regarding backup and then read the section in the Quattro manual about failure modes. They are incompatible. It has been 18mths since I researched it and forget the details.


Posted By: BobsV35B
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2017 at 10:07pm
I guess it is time for me to put in a vote for the classic T&B as a last ditch safety backup. Nothing else looks like a T&B and if the T&B is wiggling, it is working. My aircraft is all electric with the exception of a venturi powered vacuum T&B.

Stop the turn and you will survive!

Who cares which way is up?  Stopping the turn is the key.

My venturi is mounted just aft of the exhaust stack. Will not ice up as long as the engine is running.

It was good enough for the air mail pilots. It is good enough for me!

Happy Skies,

Old Bob

PS I also have one electric T&B in the panel.


-------------
Old Bob, Ancient Aviator


Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2017 at 10:54pm
Originally posted by Gring Gring wrote:

Yes, but read the detail in the Aspen install manual...

Well, as I understand it, both the L3 & Sandia in part rely on pitot to compute/crosscheck an attitude solution. With that absent, they both degrade in performance, but still pass muster for keeping the dirty side down. Both are TSO'd as backup units, the G5's are not.

Out of academic interest will have another look at the ASPEN install manual. But, IIRC it seems to me that the install manual was changed in and around that time, with respect to permitted backup units.

* Orest



Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2017 at 11:37pm
Just looking through the ASPEN install Rev. C., section 5.2 (pg 31-203). I don't see anything there that would restrict any electronic backup AI, as long as it is on a separate bus OR on an independent backup battery.

It notes that installing such is not covered by the ASPEN STC. The backup instruments themselves must have valid paperwork.

* Orest



Posted By: ronl
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2017 at 3:15am
Originally posted by DavidBunin DavidBunin wrote:

but I'll stay mechanical for my backups, thanks.


When all the pretty screens go dark inside a wet bumpy cloud it is very comforting to cast ones eyes on the face of an old friend:




-------------
Ron L


Posted By: TurboPA30
Date Posted: 29 Jun 2017 at 4:01pm
Had TWO vacuum pump failures since I installed my Aspen. No problem with the Aspen.


Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 29 Jun 2017 at 4:59pm
Anything can fail, but mechanical, vacuum driven instruments are far more likely to stop indicating, than electronic ones.

But, if you are all electric, ideally you would have an alternate source of power (in a twin or with a standby alternator), and at a minimum have them independently battery backed'up. I put in a standby alternator when I went all electronic and pulled the vacuum system.

* Orest



Posted By: skitheo
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2017 at 1:25am
So can dual G5's feed air data to the IFD540?

Seems like dual G5 + IFD540 + Trio A/P is a good IFR solution, made even better with air data connection.




Posted By: BobsV35B
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2017 at 2:04pm
Just as a small note about back up stuff -- When I eliminated all of the stock air instruments I did retain a vaccuum powered T&B along with the electrc T&B. The vacuum is supplied by a venturi mounted a couple feet aft of the exhaust. If all else fails it is needle,  ball, and airspeed, for me.

Works great! Very light weight and relatively cheap.

Happy Skies,

Old Bob


-------------
Old Bob, Ancient Aviator


Posted By: AUXAIR
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2017 at 7:39pm

The vacuum pump on my Cessna 182RG failed yesterday on a flight.  It had the usual symptoms, starting with "the leans", finally dying completely.  However it was not an issue at all because I had replaced my IFD 540 with an IFD550 several months ago.

The AHRS display on the 550  presented a very fine display in Synthetic Vision mode and was a most credible substitute for an attitude indicator!



-------------
David E.
Cessna 182 RG II


Posted By: skitheo
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2017 at 4:21pm
Again: 

Can dual G5's feed air data to IFD540/440s?


Posted By: paulr
Date Posted: 08 Jul 2017 at 9:33am
I was going to just flat-out say "no" because it isn't listed in Section 2.3 of the install manual, which covers the list of approved ADCs. However, the header for that section says "The following list represents the proven interfaces. There may be other devices that can be configured the same as one on the below list but Avidyne has not tested it and can therefore not make any compatibility claims." 

Therefore, I'll rephrase my answer: neither Avidyne nor Garmin says you can feed air data to an IFD from single or dual G5s but maybe you can do some "Cajun engineering" and figure out a way to make it work, at which point you probably have paperwork issues with the FAA. I would love for this capability to be formally supported… but first, Garmin, please please please add autopilot pickoff support.


Posted By: luchetto
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 2:51am
I think Avidyne should develop a similar product and add the features we need for compatibility issues. If Dynon, GRT and Garmin can do it, it shouldn't take years for Avi to come out with something similar.


Posted By: LANCE
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 9:06am
Originally posted by ronl ronl wrote:

Originally posted by DavidBunin DavidBunin wrote:

but I'll stay mechanical for my backups, thanks.


When all the pretty screens go dark inside a wet bumpy cloud it is very comforting to cast ones eyes on the face of an old friend:

I had 2 Aspens in a previous airplane and really enjoyed them. I had a Midcontinent Lifesaver Gyro with battery as my backup. They are rated at 7500 hours before failure. (I doubt there are any G5's with 200 hours on them yet.) Even though I was new to Aspens, I always felt comfortable with that set-up.

I have a Midcontinent Lifesaver with battery as a replacement for my turn coordinator in the airplane I have now. If I ever put an Aspen in I'm set. It just feels to me like better redundancy than the G5 that Garmin openly admits is not recommended as a backup. Even though the software updates have helped make it more stable, it was released with the original software that gave pilots false attitude readings. How does a product get released like that? It would take a lot more total hours by a lot of pilots for me to feel very comfortable with it. It seems like it was rushed to the market. I've never had a desire to be a test pilot. From what I've read about the L-3 Genesis, it seems like a proper backup. The ARS on my IFD550 will serve as tie-breaker if my two attitude indicators disagree.


Posted By: BobsV35B
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 9:49am
I can think of no ndstrument more reliable than a venturi driven T&B.

Happy Skies,

Old Bob


-------------
Old Bob, Ancient Aviator


Posted By: AzAv8r
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 1:13pm
Everything can fail.  Venturis can ice up, and any mechanical gyro has bearings.   (The venturi is at least independent of avgas, so it keeps working during that oh-no! glide through the undercast.)   And there are a number of posts on some of the type forums about G5s and Quattros dying en-mass, some stating the Garmin and Sandia have stopped shipping.   in the 35 years I've been flying (and I didn't fly a lot until we bought our plane 12 years ago), I've had about 5 vacuum instrument or system failures, two electric gyro failures, and three alternator failures.  (The majority in rental aircraft, a few right after we bought our plane).   Never in true IMC, although one was in virtual IMC (night, remote mountainous terrain with no horizon lights, no moon).   Perhaps luckily, I was in the middle of my IFR training and my cross-check proficiency kept me from entering a death-spiral.  

The key is complete independence of the backup system.  An independent battery-backed electronic AI seems to me to (potentially) provide the safest solution, since it would be standalone.   When my vacuum pump hits the 500-hour "mandatory" replacement time, I'll be selecting the self-contained electronic alternative for my backup AI.   Ultimately I'll probably put a back-up alternator on the mounting


Posted By: BobsV35B
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 3:52pm
Agreed that anything can fail, but the most likely thing to fail is the aviator.  

We regularly hear stories of airplanes being lost due to simple failures when the aviator does not have the ability to use the back up instrumentation. Needle - ball only works if you have recent practice. A back up gyro is only useful if the aviator has currency and confidence in it's use.

In my not so humble opinion, simpler is better!

Happy Skies,

Old Bob
(Active IFR pilot since 1950)


-------------
Old Bob, Ancient Aviator


Posted By: AzAv8r
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 5:25pm
Indeed!  From NTSB reports, seems like way too many tragic aviation accidents are transformed from incidents to accidents by pilot error, and often by pilots who should know better.    

So, the key is actually:  pilot proficiency and situational awareness.  But redundancy is not very far behind.




Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 2:53pm
One of my favorites, "The only place you can truly buy safety is at the store that sells pilot training."

I used to be part-owner of a flight school, and I loved that phrase.  The only problem was that it seemed self-serving, so I never got to use it.  I had to get other people to say it for me.

No piece of equipment provides safety like knowledge and proficiency.
The aviator is more likely to the the cause of any accident than the equipment.

My airplane has one engine, one propeller, one alternator, one vacuum pump, one oil pump, and the list goes on.  Yet even with all that, the most likely cause of an accident is me, the one pilot.


Posted By: jwjenks
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2017 at 8:37pm
Got a 172N and I have a IFD 550.  I'm an IFR pilot.
I'm leaving for Oshkosh this Friday to purchase a Trio or TruTrak which will replace my current ARC Autopilot (not working).  I also plan to buy a stand alone AI.
I have a vacuum AI and DG currently installed right over the yoke.
I was in intermittent IFR two days ago and had the synthetic vision on.  I actually liked the AI and DG display better than the Syn vis.  The problem was the horizontal attitude bar on the Syn Vis is not adjustable up and down (maybe I just haven't read enough of the manual).   There's a lot of data on the Syn vis display and the AI is really simple to read.
Anyway I was just wondering:
1  Which manufacturers make a stand alone AI?
2  Do both TruTrak and Trio autopilots follow the magenta line?


 


-------------
JWJ


Posted By: DH82FLYER
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2017 at 10:38am
Garmin has just announced G5 HSI support for the following autopilots, this coming September.
Also GPSS Roll Steering support, with GTN or GNS input, will be a feature. Avidyne needs to urgently make the IFD's compatible with the G5, as this is going to be very popular...

o   Century II/III
o   Century IV (AC), IV (DC)
o   Century 21/31/41
o   Century 2000
o   Cessna 400B
o   Cessna 300 IFCS/400 IFCS
o   Honeywell (Bendix King) KAP 100/150/200
o   Honeywell (Bendix King) KFC 150/200
o   Honeywell (Bendix King) KAP 140
o   Honeywell (Bendix King) KFC 225
o   S-TEC 20/30/40/50/55/60-1/60-2/65
o   S-TEC 60 PSS
o   S-TEC 55X






Posted By: Gring
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2017 at 1:06pm
I don't know how popular this will be. From the marketing information provided by Garmin, the G5 will interface with the listed autopilots only in a lateral mode - HDG or GPSS. It does not appear to have the ability to control a vertical mode - VS, ALT HOLD, FLC, IAS,etc. nor does it appear to be able to support coupled approaches with a glideslope.

I can't see replacing a KI256 with a G5 and lose significant functionality.


Posted By: skycobra
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2017 at 9:37pm
Are you sure?  The Stec-60 is strictly a pitch stabilization unit.....no lateral inputs required.   It does provide Alt hold, Vertical Speed, and Glide Slope capture.   

I will be more that happy to dump all my gimbals, bearing, and mechanical gyro's in favor of todays solid state units as I think many more will be making the shift.  

I look forward to a healthy competitive environment that gives us the best in technology especially around cost effective autopilots even if it's the big G pushing the envelope. 


-------------
Al


Posted By: comancheguy
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2017 at 11:16pm
How many GA airplanes have autopilots that can fly the vertical part of an approach?   Ok.  Now how many of those autopilots are under 40 years old?  How many work?  

For the rest of us...  Getting an electric attitude indicator (I'll keep my vacuum as a backup, thank you), an HSI, that will interface with our autopilots and legally fit in the panel for $4500 plus install is a bargain.  Heck the STEC GPSS module costs almost half that.   Heck Garmin wants almost half that to service my GI-106 that is acting up again.  

I don't mean to sound argumentative, but they are going to sell tons of G5s. 

Ken



Posted By: Flying_Monkey
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2017 at 2:26am
Avidyne, please hear us and see that the G5 is and will continue to grow greatly in popularity.  You really need to push to get the IFD units compatible (and legally compatible) with the G5s. If not, I will begin to regret choosing Avidyne over Garmin for my new IFR GPS unit that is currently being installed.  It's too late to change for me but others will continue to have a choice and the G5 will play a major role...


Posted By: LANCE
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2017 at 8:34am
Originally posted by Flying_Monkey Flying_Monkey wrote:

Avidyne, please hear us and see that the G5 is and will continue to grow greatly in popularity.  You really need to push to get the IFD units compatible (and legally compatible) with the G5s. If not, I will begin to regret choosing Avidyne over Garmin for my new IFR GPS unit that is currently being installed.  It's too late to change for me but others will continue to have a choice and the G5 will play a major role...

Who knows? Maybe Avidyne has an Oshkosh announcement for something better than the G5?


Posted By: AviSimpson
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2017 at 9:34am
No G5 competitor announcement from us. We will be looking at integrating with the G5 in the next software release. It appears that they use a similar protocol to the G500/600 that we already support so in theory, it should be straight forward.

-------------
Simpson Bennett
Avidyne Corporation
Product Manager


Posted By: comancheguy
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2017 at 12:51pm
Great news!   Well done! 


Posted By: bcool
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2017 at 2:28pm
I spoke with an Avidyne rep at Oshkosh last week & he said the G5 should be certified to work with the IFD540/550s in October, or whenever the next release of the operating system comes out.

That would be great so I can stop throwing money at my still non-functioning King HSI :)



Posted By: jwjenks
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2017 at 2:28pm
I have an IFD 550 and just getting ready to put in a G5 I got at oshkosh.  What's wrong with sending the GPS RS232 info from pin #56 into the G5?


-------------
JWJ


Posted By: mmozur
Date Posted: 16 Aug 2017 at 3:24pm
Originally posted by bcool bcool wrote:

I spoke with an Avidyne rep at Oshkosh last week & he said the G5 should be certified to work with the IFD540/550s in October, or whenever the next release of the operating system comes out.

That would be great so I can stop throwing money at my still non-functioning King HSI :)


AviSimpson, is this in the works for the upcoming release?  

Matt  


Posted By: AviSimpson
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2017 at 9:01am
Originally posted by mmozur mmozur wrote:

AviSimpson, is this in the works for the upcoming release?  

Matt  

That is the current plan. We just received the G5 so until we can get a few test cycles on it, we won't know if that plan will hold true.


-------------
Simpson Bennett
Avidyne Corporation
Product Manager


Posted By: mmozur
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2017 at 10:16am
That's great news - thanks!

I'll keep my fingers crossed :)



Posted By: Stiletto1
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2017 at 9:20pm
Originally posted by AviSimpson AviSimpson wrote:

Originally posted by mmozur mmozur wrote:

AviSimpson, is this in the works for the upcoming release?  

Matt  

That is the current plan. We just received the G5 so until we can get a few test cycles on it, we won't know if that plan will hold true.

In planning upgrades to my own panel, this subject raises a question I have regarding STC's.

If one component does not list another as an approved interface, IE: the G5 STC does not list the IFD as an approved GPS source, would such an installation be "legal" if the IFD STC does include an interface to the G5? 



-------------
C310C


Posted By: DavidBunin
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2017 at 9:53am
Some STCs include wording to the effect that it is up to the A&P/IA doing the installation to ensure that the STC does not interfere with any other installed STC.

The textbook example would be an STC that installs high compression cylinders with an STC that installs a high-flow exhaust system.  Either one by itself is approved and tested, but the combination of the two was never put through a certification test.  An engine with both upgrades could potentially exceed the cooling system's capabilities (or push up against some other operational boundary).

Naturally, electronics are a bit different, but the certification process is optimized for mechanical things, not for electronics.


Posted By: Flying_Monkey
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2017 at 8:09pm
Originally posted by AviSimpson AviSimpson wrote:

Originally posted by mmozur mmozur wrote:

AviSimpson, is this in the works for the upcoming release?  

Matt  

That is the current plan. We just received the G5 so until we can get a few test cycles on it, we won't know if that plan will hold true.

Any progress on this.  A few of us are in a position to pull the trigger on G5s but holding off until 100% sure we can legally use with the 540.


Posted By: M20Kid
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2017 at 9:22pm
I had this same issue when my standby attitude indicator failed.  Since the GarMonster was not interested in working with Avidyne I chose to go with Sandia.  It's a solid unit that does not require any GPS interface so there's no issue with compatibility.  Of course, the Sandia doesn't do any nav functions, so it that's what you need then this is not a viable solution.


Posted By: skitheo
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2017 at 11:02pm
Originally posted by AviSimpson AviSimpson wrote:

No G5 competitor announcement from us. We will be looking at integrating with the G5 in the next software release. It appears that they use a similar protocol to the G500/600 that we already support so in theory, it should be straight forward.


Avidyne didn't have an announcement for a G5 competitor, but Dynon sure did! And Dynon prefers Avidyne navigators. Witness how many IFD5x0 are in their promotional photos!


Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2017 at 8:54am
I'd go Sandia or Dynon, or if you need nav indications and don't mind spending a bit more, the L3.

I have a Sandia Quattro, and it is a solid performer. The other big advantage to the Sandia & L3 is that ALL of their indications are certified, AI, ASI, Alt, VS etc. Only the AI is a certified indication on the Garmin & Dynon.

* Orest



Posted By: Flying_Monkey
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2017 at 8:45pm
Originally posted by AviSimpson AviSimpson wrote:

Originally posted by mmozur mmozur wrote:

AviSimpson, is this in the works for the upcoming release?  

Matt  

That is the current plan. We just received the G5 so until we can get a few test cycles on it, we won't know if that plan will hold true.

Any update on if this will be in the upcoming release and when that might be?


Posted By: oskrypuch
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2017 at 10:54pm
Avidyne is shutdown until next week some time. (Irma)

* Orest



Posted By: AviSimpson
Date Posted: 11 Sep 2017 at 9:16am
Originally posted by Flying_Monkey Flying_Monkey wrote:

Any update on if this will be in the upcoming release and when that might be?
No updates to share on this. Initial indications look promising to support it in an upcoming release.


-------------
Simpson Bennett
Avidyne Corporation
Product Manager


Posted By: Flying_Monkey
Date Posted: 12 Sep 2017 at 7:58pm
Originally posted by AviSimpson AviSimpson wrote:

Originally posted by Flying_Monkey Flying_Monkey wrote:

Any update on if this will be in the upcoming release and when that might be?
No updates to share on this. Initial indications look promising to support it in an upcoming release.

Thanks for the reply. Will you please let us know if/when you have an estimated date as to when we could expect the G5 to be supported?  It will help a few of us make decisions.


Posted By: M20J
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2017 at 4:12pm
I too am hoping to replace my AI and HSI with G5's, assuming the IFD's are compatible. Hopefully they will be supported soon.


Posted By: Flying_Monkey
Date Posted: 07 Nov 2017 at 7:56pm
Originally posted by AviSimpson AviSimpson wrote:

No updates to share on this. Initial indications look promising to support it in an upcoming release.

2 moths later and wondering if there are any updates.  Lots of people installing dual G5s and with the GFC500 on the horizon I think a lot of people are wondering if they will be able to use their IFDs in this setup.


Posted By: AviSimpson
Date Posted: 08 Nov 2017 at 9:15am
Originally posted by Flying_Monkey Flying_Monkey wrote:

2 moths later and wondering if there are any updates.  Lots of people installing dual G5s and with the GFC500 on the horizon I think a lot of people are wondering if they will be able to use their IFDs in this setup.
No update to share. Once the work is done to ensure this interface works, we will let everyone know what release it will make it in.


-------------
Simpson Bennett
Avidyne Corporation
Product Manager


Posted By: pburger
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2017 at 12:07pm
Does this really require a new software release? or just a revision to the manual?  I'm curious because I plan to pop in two G5s next year.

Since the G5 works with the GNS-430/530, is this just a paperwork issue at this point?  The G5 uses ARINC 429, so I would think it just has to be set up properly on both ends.  As AviSimpson posted earlier, the G5 STC doesn't list the IFDs, but Avidyne could include the G5 as a compatible device in their installation manual.  


Posted By: Flying_Monkey
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2017 at 2:06am
Originally posted by pburger pburger wrote:

Does this really require a new software release? or just a revision to the manual?  I'm curious because I plan to pop in two G5s next year.

Since the G5 works with the GNS-430/530, is this just a paperwork issue at this point?  The G5 uses ARINC 429, so I would think it just has to be set up properly on both ends.  As AviSimpson posted earlier, the G5 STC doesn't list the IFDs, but Avidyne could include the G5 as a compatible device in their installation manual.  

I don't know.  Has anyone tried it?  Would be an awfully expensive experiment if it doesn't work but I thought I read someone's post who had installed it.  I would think it would work but wouldn't be legal... yet.  I'm getting kind of impatient waiting though.  


Posted By: chflyer
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2017 at 5:43am
Originally posted by skitheo skitheo wrote:

So can dual G5's feed air data to the IFD540?

Seems like dual G5 + IFD540 + Trio A/P is a good IFR solution, made even better with air data connection.


I wonder what general expectations are here. Just to give one example, the G5 doesn't have ARINC 429 output. So a dual G5 would also need a GAD29/29B to provide an IFD with air data feed from the G5 HSI.

Agreed that the IFD could receive a direct RS232 feed, but I'd be very careful to read the Garmin G5 manual on what data might actually be transferred across it just to ensure that all expectations are met.


-------------
Vince


Posted By: nrproces
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2017 at 9:06am
Ok folks, as I said earlier, I made the mistake of installing two G5's into my 182 in order to rid myself of the vacuum system and it has been a problem. Currently neither of the G5's are operational. My Avionics installer let me know this morning that they are having battery problems. No S**t sherlock, both of mine are absolutely dead. They do not startup, and I can not push the On/Off button to get them to start up. I am t/o'd because at the moment I can't fly and I have places that need to be gone to.

I will let you all know the solution, but until then hold off, on the install, of yours.


-------------
Sauce


Posted By: AviSimpson
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2017 at 9:34am
Originally posted by pburger pburger wrote:

Does this really require a new software release? or just a revision to the manual?  I'm curious because I plan to pop in two G5s next year.

Since the G5 works with the GNS-430/530, is this just a paperwork issue at this point?  The G5 uses ARINC 429, so I would think it just has to be set up properly on both ends.  As AviSimpson posted earlier, the G5 STC doesn't list the IFDs, but Avidyne could include the G5 as a compatible device in their installation manual.  

It appears that it will just be a documentation exercise. We will still need to fly it in our test aircraft to confirm it.


-------------
Simpson Bennett
Avidyne Corporation
Product Manager


Posted By: nrproces
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2017 at 10:04am
Well, G has a workaround for their G5's power issue. Apparently I am not the only one.

Here it is.

using an allen wrench appropriatly sized. remove the instrument from the panel, unscrew the two battery screws from the unit. Turn on the essential power to check the instrument for operation, if it turns on the problem is the battery issue. In both of mine I had that exact issue. I guess that they have a software problem to deal with because they said that I was the third guy they worked through it with today.

Well at least its not a total bust, but the batterys need to be charged and the only way to do that is fly. What a bummer that will be....LOL


-------------
Sauce


Posted By: compasst
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2017 at 7:14am
I am happy to report that a dual G5 installation with GMU11 and GAD 29 interfaces perfectly with IFD 540. I have about 10 hours in actual hand flying in actual imc with several approaches to minimum and I am totally happy with the interface. I don’t yet have an auto pilot in my cardinal, but find my accuracy in flying has improved to less than 1/10 of a mile and less than 50 feet over several hours. This is totally because of the G5’s.

In a few days I will be test flying another installation with a 530 W and a century three auto pilot. 

The GAD 29 is required to  to interface and get gps Nav data from a GPS navigator. The GAD 29B is required for non Garman auto pilot. 


Posted By: Gring
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2017 at 8:00am
Quote I don’t yet have an auto pilot in my cardinal, but find my accuracy in flying has improved to less than 1/10 of a mile and less than 50 feet over several hours. This is totally because of the G5’s.

Can you explain this a little?  Improved over what?  DG and CDI?  Analog HSI?

I can tell you that my experience with the G5 is that the presentation (ie compass card) is significantly smaller than a King or Century HSI and harder to read.


Posted By: pburger
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2017 at 3:48pm
Great news compasst!!


Posted By: Flying_Monkey
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2017 at 9:15pm
Originally posted by compasst compasst wrote:

I am happy to report that a dual G5 installation with GMU11 and GAD 29 interfaces perfectly with IFD 540. I have about 10 hours in actual hand flying in actual imc with several approaches to minimum and I am totally happy with the interface. I don’t yet have an auto pilot in my cardinal, but find my accuracy in flying has improved to less than 1/10 of a mile and less than 50 feet over several hours. This is totally because of the G5’s.

In a few days I will be test flying another installation with a 530 W and a century three auto pilot. 

The GAD 29 is required to  to interface and get gps Nav data from a GPS navigator. The GAD 29B is required for non Garman auto pilot. 


Thanks for posting this report. Hopefully we will get avidyne to do the test flight and update their paperwork soon.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net