Garmin G5 as backup in C550

C

Colin Malaker

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
2
Display Name
Display name:
CAM
I was wondering if you could do a fild approval for using the G5 to replace old standby gyro in Citation II (C550). I have not seen it on the lists and have not heard of anyone trying this yet.
 
I highly doubt it. From https://www8.garmin.com/aviation/brochures/G5_Certificated.pdf

"Approved for VFR and IFR flight operations, the Garmin G5 electronic flight instrument
brings new levels of reliability, affordability, system integration and situational
awareness to the cockpits of most single- and twin-engine general aviation aircraft
under 6,000 pounds."
 
Plano Pilot said:
I highly doubt it. From https://www8.garmin.com/aviation/brochures/G5_Certificated.pdf

"Approved for VFR and IFR flight operations, the Garmin G5 electronic flight instrument
brings new levels of reliability, affordability, system integration and situational
awareness to the cockpits of most single- and twin-engine general aviation aircraft
under 6,000 pounds."
Click to expand...

Don't forget, not approved for FIKI, or pressurized aircraft either.

That field approval will end up at an ACO, who I bet will say no. You could always call and ask an MRO who holds an ODA.

The 550 being transport category doesn't come close to what these were designed for.
 
I think the only thing keeping it from being OK is that Garmin thinks they can extract more money from jet owners. Frankly, a bunch o crap....
 
The lawyers and CYA policies in part 25 can certainly be expensive.
 
Is Part 23 much cheaper? I’m guessing that Part 25 “incidents” settle for much more money, but that there are vastly more Part 23 “incidents”.
 
Also, the AP prices go up steeply for Garmin APs once it’s considered a “high performance” aircraft, which I believe they arbitrarily define as 6000 lbs.

If it’s liability they’re concerned with, should be defined as > 6 seats.
 
dans2992 said:
I think the only thing keeping it from being OK is that Garmin thinks they can extract more money from jet owners. Frankly, a bunch o crap....
Click to expand...

I don't think that's really true. If you talk to the policy guys at the FAA, you'll find that the G5 is STCd in part due to an FAA policy statement that permits replacing vacuum attitude indicators with electric ones. FAA Policy Statement PS-ACE-23-08. That policy puts a (somewhat arbitrary) line at 6,000lbs. The 6,000lb limit isn't Garmin's, it's the FAA's. 6,000lbs is also the FAA's dividing line between Class II and Class III avionics.
 
dans2992 said:
Is Part 23 much cheaper? I’m guessing that Part 25 “incidents” settle for much more money, but that there are vastly more Part 23 “incidents”.
Click to expand...

Financial strategy exists in every industry. It’s a turd sandwich we all eat. But you can choose not to, sometimes.
 
bradg33 said:
I don't think that's really true. If you talk to the policy guys at the FAA, you'll find that the G5 is STCd in part due to an FAA policy statement that permits replacing vacuum attitude indicators with electric ones. FAA Policy Statement PS-ACE-23-08. That policy puts a (somewhat arbitrary) line at 6,000lbs. The 6,000lb limit isn't Garmin's, it's the FAA's. 6,000lbs is also the FAA's dividing line between Class II and Class III avionics.
Click to expand...


Interesting. So, what’s the difference between Class II and Class III? Reliability? Are avionics in transport category planes more reliable than our part 23 spam cans?
 
dans2992 said:
Interesting. So, what’s the difference between Class II and Class III? Reliability? Are avionics in transport category planes more reliable than our part 23 spam cans?
Click to expand...
Greater level of scrutiny/certification requirements.

I have discovered this issue with the Beech 18. Because it’s over 6000 lbs, Garmin couldn’t just throw it on the STC list without going through a whole mother testing/certification process. And Garmin has flat out told us that there wouldn’t be enough demand for Beech 18 G5 installs for them to even entertain going through that process.
 
They should just divide it up by Part 25/Part 23.

Adding in this 6,000 lb business is just another layer of complexity... ;)
 
Plano Pilot said:
I highly doubt it. From https://www8.garmin.com/aviation/brochures/G5_Certificated.pdf

"Approved for VFR and IFR flight operations, the Garmin G5 electronic flight instrument
brings new levels of reliability, affordability, system integration and situational
awareness to the cockpits of most single- and twin-engine general aviation aircraft
under 6,000 pounds."
Click to expand...

Not to mention, you can't use it as a backup even in a 172. Primary only.

There's something about a modified TSO for primary instruments that recognizes the safety improvement of a reliable electronic gyro instead of a mechanical spinny gyro, but they didn't change the TSO for backup instruments. That leads to the ironic situation that what's good enough to be your primary, isn't good enough to be your backup according to the FAA!

But yeah, G5 as a backup on a Citation ain't gonna happen.
 
Garmin said over on Beechtalk that the G5 has never been tested against HIRF requirements, just one thing of many I'm sure. It looks to me like the standby gyro in the C550 is a required instrument. I think you can deduce that its never gonna happen.

http://www.l3aviationproducts.com/products/gh-3900/

These have been pretty popular where I work
 
Colin Malaker said:
I was wondering if you could do a fild approval for using the G5 to replace old standby gyro in Citation II (C550). I have not seen it on the lists and have not heard of anyone trying this yet.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth. I know of other FIKI pressurized twins (not jets) that are also not allowed a G5 under the STC that have found mechanics that have no problem installing them on a separate pitot static system than the main. They put the G5 on the co-pilot side via the secondary pitot/static in a non-required instrument capacity.

Not entirely clear if this is what you were looking for or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top