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.

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

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

G5 communications support, please.

* Orest

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?

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

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.

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. 

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

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

* Orest

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.

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

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

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.

Works great! Very light weight and relatively cheap.

Happy Skies,

Old Bob

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

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.

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.

Happy Skies,

Old Bob

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)

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. 

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

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

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  

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.

I'll keep my fingers crossed :)

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? 

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.

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.

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

* Orest

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.

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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

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. 

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.