G5 as primary

[ateamer]

I have dual G5s, but per the STC the steam gauge airspeed, altimeter, turn coordinator and VSI had to stay. If I had GI-275s, they can be primary instruments and the old stuff can go away. I know the G5 is older than the 275, and when it came out the FAA was understandably hesitant to fully approve such radical technology, but now that they’ve been in widespread use for close to 10 years, is there likely to be a way - STC update, MOSAIC, field approval - for dual G5s to be standalone instruments?

 

[robin ardoin]

Im fairly certain at least one school 172 had the G5’s as primary; I don’t recall having gyro instruments. Same with a friend’s 182-Q.

 

[M20K]

I have dual G5s, but per the STC the steam gauge airspeed, altimeter, turn coordinator and VSI had to stay. If I had GI-275s, they can be primary instruments and the old stuff can go away. I know the G5 is older than the 275, and when it came out the FAA was understandably hesitant to fully approve such radical technology, but now that they’ve been in widespread use for close to 10 years, is there likely to be a way - STC update, MOSAIC, field approval - for dual G5s to be standalone instruments?

The G5 can be a Primary instrument. I'm not sure of the specifics of why it might not be true in some aircraft and okay in others. It may be that a single G5 may not be a Primary, but if you have two, then *they* can be approve.

As for the FAA being hesitant with the G5 when it first came out, that's not the case. I really wish I could remember the exact statement, but a Garmin rep in a presentation when the GI-275 first came out and they were pushing it specifically called out that the G5 was designed as a BACKUP to some other Garmin device. And that it why it was not allowed to be a Primary display where the GI-275 was designed as a Primay display. So again, it may be if you have two, then you have a backup and that's why they'll approve it.

 

[TCABM]

….is there likely to be a way - STC update, MOSAIC, field approval - for dual G5s to be standalone instruments?

In E-AB land, this happens today. I don’t see Garmin actively choosing to go down this path in type-certified land given it would cannibalize -275 sales.

That said, given the STC limitations and all of G’s other documentation, I don’t see a clear path for a field approval, either.

 

[TCABM]

… a Garmin rep in a presentation when the GI-275 first came out and they were pushing it specifically called out that the G5 was designed as a BACKUP to some other Garmin device.…

The G-5 was originally designed to operate standalone, as a dual G5 system, or as a G-3X backup.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The G-5 was originally designed to operate standalone, as a dual G5 system, or as a G-3X backup.

Do you have a reference for that? I don't either, so I may be way off, but my recollection is that the G5 was originally created for the experimental/light sport market, with the eventual GI275 for the certified market. But as it turned out the simplicity of the G5 and the ease of transition to it from analog created a certified demand that Garmin met.

 

[TCABM]

Do you have a reference for that? I don't either, so I may be way off, but my recollection is that the G5 was originally created for the experimental/light sport market, with the eventual GI275 for the certified market. But as it turned out the simplicity of the G5 and the ease of transition to it from analog created a certified demand that Garmin met.

Just Garmin’s product announcement from 2016.

Garmin® Team X introduces the G5 electronic flight instrument for experimental aircraft - Garmin Newsroom

All-glass back-up or primary flight instrument with optional autopilot capability Garmin International Inc., a unit of Garmin Ltd. (NASDAQ: GRMN), today announced the G5 electronic flight instrument for experimental amateur-built (EAB) and light sport aircraft (LSA). The compact and...

www.garmin.com

 

[Bell206]

is there likely to be a way - STC update, MOSAIC, field approval - for dual G5s to be standalone instruments?

Technically per Garmin documentation they are considered standalone indicators in most cases. The issue here is that you want to remove the airspeed, altimeter, turn coordinator and VSI. However, even with some high end glass installs they still require a backup airspeed and altimeter. And just to note, there is a big difference internally between the G5 and 275 so no real comparison in this case.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a path to remove at least some of those legacy instruments:

What aircraft?
IFR or VFR only?
Autopilot?
Do you have battery back up on your G5(s)?
What STC number were the G5s installed under?

 

[ateamer]

In E-AB land, this happens today. I don’t see Garmin actively choosing to go down this path in type-certified land given it would cannibalize -275 sales.

That said, given the STC limitations and all of G’s other documentation, I don’t see a clear path for a field approval, either.

If I ever sell the 175, I’ll go back to Experimental and never own another certified plane. In just a few months I’ve already been reminded of how much of a pain the restrictions and expenses of certified are.

 

[SebIp]

We went to a Garmin dealer and no the g5s cannot be standalone. We still have the steam airspeed (new), vsi, and turn and bank.

In practice you definitely wants the vsi. It’s not possible to quickly read like a hundred fpm from the G5. So when doing your instrument stuff you need that vsi.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Just Garmin’s product announcement from 2016.

Garmin® Team X introduces the G5 electronic flight instrument for experimental aircraft - Garmin Newsroom

All-glass back-up or primary flight instrument with optional autopilot capability Garmin International Inc., a unit of Garmin Ltd. (NASDAQ: GRMN), today announced the G5 electronic flight instrument for experimental amateur-built (EAB) and light sport aircraft (LSA). The compact and...

www.garmin.com

I guess

supports either of our memories

 

[robin ardoin]

We went to a Garmin dealer and no the g5s cannot be standalone. We still have the steam airspeed (new), vsi, and turn and bank.

In practice you definitely wants the vsi. It’s not possible to quickly read like a hundred fpm from the G5. So when doing your instrument stuff you need that vsi.

In retrospect, the aircraft I flew that had G5’s in place of the AI and HSI also maintained the original VSI, altimeter, and turn coordinator.

 

[midlifeflyer]

So far, no one has referenced the obvious. This is from the current (Revision 9, 2023) certified G5 AFMS. I only highlighted the part we have been talking about here. But the second deals a bit with @robin ardoin's situation.

In retrospect, the aircraft I flew that had G5’s in place of the AI and HSI also maintained the original VSI, altimeter, and turn coordinator.

The choice between retaining the TC or the AI is often driven by whether the autopilot is rate-based or attitude-based.

 

[TCABM]

I guess
View attachment 145094
supports either of our memories

Yeah, sorry if I introduced some confusion. The G5 was originally for the E-AB market; the AML STC introduces the PFD limitation of one primary instrument. The different software versions for the two installations don’t seem significant enough to be anything other than self-imposed by Garmin to preserve the -275 for the certified market.

Put differently, I think the G5 led the path (and bridged a gap) to get to the 275 as primary for multiple instruments for certified aircraft.

 

[Ed Haywood]

It's not enough to say primary. You have to say primary for WHAT. The G5 STC allows replacement of some required instruments (AI, DG) but not others (ASI, ALT, etc).

 

[SebIp]

Yeah, sorry if I introduced some confusion. The G5 was originally for the E-AB market; the AML STC introduces the PFD limitation of one primary instrument. The different software versions for the two installations don’t seem significant enough to be anything other than self-imposed by Garmin to preserve the -275 for the certified market.

Put differently, I think the G5 led the path (and bridged a gap) to get to the 275 as primary for multiple instruments for certified aircraft.

There could also bit a lot of differences you cannot see.

In my industry you have Safety Integrity Level or SIL. For a lot of stuff SIL 2 level is sufficient but for anything considered SIL 4 the burden of proof becomes a lot harder.

The G5 could have simplification of things like memory integrity, processors etc. The 275 likely had a larger bar to clear on any number of internal components. Otherwise put it another way they could have save themselves a lot of development cost by have G5 and G5 plus for different designation of primary instrumentation. And if it was as simple as just a software flag to change between the two, they would likely sold a software patch to let people an upgrade path which would be pure profit.

One thing off topic is that G5s don't need a database subscription. You may not need it for 275 either but we went G5 because we didn't feel there's much in it for our purpose.

 

[TCABM]

There could also bit a lot of differences you cannot see...

I don’t disagree.

 

[M20K]

as a dual G5 system, or as a G-3X backup.

Thanks for the clarification. The guy was very adamant that you needed the GI-275 if you were looking to buy one instrument.

 

[M20K]

Do you have a reference for that? I don't either, so I may be way off, but my recollection is that the G5 was originally created for the experimental/light sport market, with the eventual GI275 for the certified market.

I don't have any references, but I believe Garmin pushed the dual G5 approval (per @TCABM) because of the release of some other insturment before the GI-275 was released. (Maybe the Sandia, but I really am not sure.)

 

[Clip4]

I have dual G5s, but per the STC the steam gauge airspeed, altimeter, turn coordinator and VSI had to stay. If I had GI-275s, they can be primary instruments and the old stuff can go away. I know the G5 is older than the 275, and when it came out the FAA was understandably hesitant to fully approve such radical technology, but now that they’ve been in widespread use for close to 10 years, is there likely to be a way - STC update, MOSAIC, field approval - for dual G5s to be standalone instruments?

Saying a G5 does the same thing as a 275 is like saying WAAS and non WAAS RNAVs are the same.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't have any references, but I believe Garmin pushed the dual G5 approval (per @TCABM) because of the release of some other insturment before the GI-275 was released. (Maybe the Sandia, but I really am not sure.)

Maybe. The Sandia was definitely around.