![]() |
Garmin G5 and IFD 540 |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page 123 4> |
Author | ||
Flying_Monkey ![]() Groupie ![]() Joined: 27 Mar 2017 Location: CA Status: Offline Points: 70 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 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.
|
||
![]() |
||
AviSimpson ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 31 Mar 2015 Location: Lincoln, MA Status: Offline Points: 765 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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 |
||
![]() |
||
Flying_Monkey ![]() Groupie ![]() Joined: 27 Mar 2017 Location: CA Status: Offline Points: 70 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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....
|
||
![]() |
||
bneub111 ![]() Newbie ![]() Joined: 16 Feb 2015 Status: Offline Points: 33 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
|
||
![]() |
||
AviSimpson ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 31 Mar 2015 Location: Lincoln, MA Status: Offline Points: 765 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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 |
||
![]() |
||
DH82FLYER ![]() Groupie ![]() Joined: 15 Dec 2012 Location: Queensland Status: Offline Points: 88 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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
Edited by DH82FLYER - 31 Mar 2017 at 9:28am |
||
![]() |
||
Gring ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 30 Dec 2011 Location: Kingston, NY Status: Offline Points: 731 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. |
||
![]() |
||
paulr ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 24 Jan 2014 Status: Offline Points: 558 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
|
||
![]() |
||
DH82FLYER ![]() Groupie ![]() Joined: 15 Dec 2012 Location: Queensland Status: Offline Points: 88 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
Edited by DH82FLYER - 31 Mar 2017 at 7:26pm |
||
![]() |
||
bneub111 ![]() Newbie ![]() Joined: 16 Feb 2015 Status: Offline Points: 33 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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... |
||
![]() |
||
Flying_Monkey ![]() Groupie ![]() Joined: 27 Mar 2017 Location: CA Status: Offline Points: 70 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Any update on G5/Avidyne 540 compatibility? Have the HSI enabled G5 units started shipping?
|
||
![]() |
||
DH82FLYER ![]() Groupie ![]() Joined: 15 Dec 2012 Location: Queensland Status: Offline Points: 88 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
||
paulr ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 24 Jan 2014 Status: Offline Points: 558 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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".
|
||
![]() |
||
Flying_Monkey ![]() Groupie ![]() Joined: 27 Mar 2017 Location: CA Status: Offline Points: 70 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Any progress or update on this? Surely I am not the only one asking for it!
|
||
![]() |
||
paulr ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 24 Jan 2014 Status: Offline Points: 558 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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...
|
||
![]() |
||
AviSimpson ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 31 Mar 2015 Location: Lincoln, MA Status: Offline Points: 765 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Don't call me 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 |
||
![]() |
||
Gring ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 30 Dec 2011 Location: Kingston, NY Status: Offline Points: 731 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I think Garmin came out and said that there were no plans for autopilot integration in the G5 at this time.
|
||
![]() |
||
pburger ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 26 Dec 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 406 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I am definitely interested in the G5 as an HSI, but I would need to know that it is compatible with the IFD-540.
|
||
![]() |
||
comancheguy ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 24 Aug 2011 Location: Maryland Status: Offline Points: 160 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
This needs to move up near the top of the list. IMHO.
|
||
![]() |
||
Flying_Monkey ![]() Groupie ![]() Joined: 27 Mar 2017 Location: CA Status: Offline Points: 70 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
|
||
![]() |
||
DH82FLYER ![]() Groupie ![]() Joined: 15 Dec 2012 Location: Queensland Status: Offline Points: 88 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. Edited by DH82FLYER - 10 Jun 2017 at 8:27am |
||
![]() |
||
compasst ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 22 Feb 2015 Location: Akron, OH Status: Offline Points: 176 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
|
||
![]() |
||
ronl ![]() Groupie ![]() Joined: 08 Apr 2015 Status: Offline Points: 88 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Why the preference for G5? Just curious. |
||
Ron L
|
||
![]() |
||
oskrypuch ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3061 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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 |
||
![]() |
||
paulr ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 24 Jan 2014 Status: Offline Points: 558 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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?
|
||
![]() |
||
oskrypuch ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3061 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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 Edited by oskrypuch - 13 Jun 2017 at 11:05am |
||
![]() |
||
paulr ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 24 Jan 2014 Status: Offline Points: 558 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
|
||
![]() |
||
pburger ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 26 Dec 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 406 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
Edited by pburger - 13 Jun 2017 at 10:42pm |
||
![]() |
||
pburger ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 26 Dec 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 406 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
|
||
![]() |
||
compasst ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 22 Feb 2015 Location: Akron, OH Status: Offline Points: 176 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
|
||
![]() |
||
DavidBunin ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
My understanding is that the STC only installs provisions for an autopilot. Actual installation and activation of the autopilot is still in the future.
|
||
![]() |
||
chflyer ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 24 Jan 2013 Location: LSZK Status: Offline Points: 1022 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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
|
||
![]() |
||
pburger ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 26 Dec 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 406 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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:
Edited by pburger - 13 Jun 2017 at 10:42pm |
||
![]() |
||
ronl ![]() Groupie ![]() Joined: 08 Apr 2015 Status: Offline Points: 88 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. Edited by ronl - 14 Jun 2017 at 12:13am |
||
Ron L
|
||
![]() |
||
LANCE ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 06 Dec 2014 Location: TEXAS Status: Offline Points: 277 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
|
||
![]() |
||
MarkZ ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 05 Sep 2015 Location: 0TX0 Status: Offline Points: 172 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I like my Aspens but they are intolerant of any kind of static leak.
|
||
![]() |
||
ronl ![]() Groupie ![]() Joined: 08 Apr 2015 Status: Offline Points: 88 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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
|
||
![]() |
||
oskrypuch ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3061 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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 Edited by oskrypuch - 15 Jun 2017 at 11:41pm |
||
![]() |
||
DavidBunin ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 20 May 2015 Location: Rockwall, TX Status: Offline Points: 742 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
|
||
![]() |
||
comancheguy ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 24 Aug 2011 Location: Maryland Status: Offline Points: 160 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Hear Hear! I want an aspen or a G5 for Primary. But, I'll be keeping the Vacuum pump / AI.
|
||
![]() |
||
Gring ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 30 Dec 2011 Location: Kingston, NY Status: Offline Points: 731 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
|
||
![]() |
||
oskrypuch ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3061 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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 |
||
![]() |
||
Gring ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 30 Dec 2011 Location: Kingston, NY Status: Offline Points: 731 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
Edited by Gring - 15 Jun 2017 at 7:28pm |
||
![]() |
||
oskrypuch ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3061 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
The Quatro will continue functioning, even with the pitot out, and the ASPEN red X'd. My shop had no issues using it. * Orest |
||
![]() |
||
Gring ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 30 Dec 2011 Location: Kingston, NY Status: Offline Points: 731 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
|
||
![]() |
||
BobsV35B ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 24 Aug 2011 Location: Downers Grove, Status: Offline Points: 131 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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
|
||
![]() |
||
oskrypuch ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3061 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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 Edited by oskrypuch - 15 Jun 2017 at 11:34pm |
||
![]() |
||
oskrypuch ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3061 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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 |
||
![]() |
||
ronl ![]() Groupie ![]() Joined: 08 Apr 2015 Status: Offline Points: 88 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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
|
||
![]() |
||
TurboPA30 ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 18 Sep 2010 Location: 27XS Status: Offline Points: 138 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Had TWO vacuum pump failures since I installed my Aspen. No problem with the Aspen.
|
||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page 123 4> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |