Garmin G5 as backup in C550

Discussion in 'Avionics and Upgrades' started by Colin Malaker, Dec 12, 2017.

  1. Colin Malaker

    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.
     
  2. Plano Pilot

    Plano Pilot Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    145
    Location:
    KADS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Plano Pilot
    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."
     
  3. bnt83

    bnt83 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    7,449
    Location:
    Lincoln NE
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Brian
    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.
     
  4. dans2992

    dans2992 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,062
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dans2992
    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....
     
  5. bnt83

    bnt83 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    7,449
    Location:
    Lincoln NE
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Brian
    The lawyers and CYA policies in part 25 can certainly be expensive.
     
  6. dans2992

    dans2992 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,062
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dans2992
    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”.
     
  7. dans2992

    dans2992 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,062
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dans2992
    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.
     
  8. bradg33

    bradg33 Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,099
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Esquire99
    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.
     
  9. bnt83

    bnt83 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    7,449
    Location:
    Lincoln NE
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Brian
    Financial strategy exists in every industry. It’s a turd sandwich we all eat. But you can choose not to, sometimes.
     
  10. dans2992

    dans2992 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,062
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dans2992

    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?
     
  11. bradg33

    bradg33 Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,099
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Esquire99
    Reliability, failure modes, etc. The technical side is over my head, but I understand the regulatory burden of certifying a Class III device is higher.

    This might get you started on understanding:

    http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_23_1309-1E.pdf
     
  12. Fearless Tower

    Fearless Tower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    14,047
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Fearless Tower
    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.
     
  13. dans2992

    dans2992 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,062
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dans2992
    They should just divide it up by Part 25/Part 23.

    Adding in this 6,000 lb business is just another layer of complexity... ;)
     
  14. flyingcheesehead

    flyingcheesehead Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    19,608
    Location:
    UQACY, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iMooniac
    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.
     
  15. bnt83

    bnt83 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    7,449
    Location:
    Lincoln NE
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Brian
    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
     
  16. Radar Contact

    Radar Contact Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2016
    Messages:
    1,095
    Location:
    Illinois
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Kevin
    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?