Garmin Flight Display Capability Disappointment

[farmrjohn]

I've been communicating with Garmin support, trying to find a display that can provide a flight director without the need for an autopilot or external flight director. In my case there are no approved autopilots for the airplane, but I would like to have a flight director for hand flying. I started by inquiring about the G3X Touch, which the pilot handbook implies a flight director function is available on the 10" screen without an autopilot. Support's response was apparently the STC doesn't allow that, and the STC is available only to dealers. After an ongoing dialog about the G3X and how to get a flight director without an actual autopilot, I switched over to the GI-275 hoping it could work. Here is the latest response:

"The "+AP" version of the GI 275 will show a flight director when it is interfaced with third-party autopilots that are approved under the GI 275 STC. Some of those autopilots require retaining the original ADI that contains the flight director (sometimes blind-mounted). It will also show a flight director when a GFC 500 or GFC 600 is installed, but in that regard it's the same as G3X and G5, where it won't show the flight director unless the full autopilot is installed. The flight director configuration settings are hidden until an autopilot is configured.

With Garmin digital systems, the FD is tied so closely into the autopilot functionality that it's considered part of the autopilot. So we don't have any way to show it without actually having an autopilot."

Are there any displays/manufacturers that don't require an autopilot to get a flight director?

 

[bnt83]

IAre there any displays/manufacturers that don't require an autopilot to get a flight director?

I think you are looking for something that doesn't exist. I don't think it exists in either the certified aircraft world or the homebuilt world.

 

[Salty]

flight director is a feature of an autopilot. You could probably install an A/P without servos to get a F/D. Don't know if that's actually possible or not.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

With the G3X synthetic vision I think you can get their “highway in the sky” feature without an autopilot. It displays boxes which you fly through to stay on course.

 

[Salty]

With the G3X synthetic vision I think you can get their “highway in the sky” feature without an autopilot. It displays boxes which you fly through to stay on course.

That's true, but it's not technically a F/D. It doesn't tell you what to do to in order to being flying through the boxes....

 

[mondtster]

FWIW, there was a similar discussion here. It might be of interest.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...av-unit-that-drives-a-flight-director.141596/

 

[farmrjohn]

FWIW, there was a similar discussion here. It might be of interest.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...av-unit-that-drives-a-flight-director.141596/

I'm currently using a GRT Mini-GA for VFR only and it does have a built in flight director that doesn't require an autopilot to function. One of the question trains I had with Garmin support was just installing the control for the GFC500 to "configure" the G3X for an autopilot to get the FD. They answered it was basically buttons and the servos would be needed as well. I would like to "upgrade" to something that could be used for IFR as well but the lack of an available autopilot sounds like that won't be possible, sigh.

 

[WDD]

What specific things are you looking for from a FD that would up the game for you vs the HSI, Glide slope, or G3 flying boxes that you have or could have without an autopilot?

In my mind, I don’t see a lot of upside - but I might be missing something. Interested in your POV.

 

[hindsight2020]

Interesting. In the work airplane the PFD has a FD and we have no AP.

 

[asicer]

With the G3X synthetic vision I think you can get their “highway in the sky” feature without an autopilot. It displays boxes which you fly through to stay on course.

Coupled with the FPM, it goes a long way towards being a stand-in for a FD.

 

[farmrjohn]

What specific things are you looking for from a FD that would up the game for you vs the HSI, Glide slope, or G3 flying boxes that you have or could have without an autopilot?

In my mind, I don’t see a lot of upside - but I might be missing something. Interested in your POV.

Coupled with the FPM, it goes a long way towards being a stand-in for a FD.

I've experimented with the highway in the sky boxes and don't care for them. To me it seems like balancing on a platform on top of a ball, but perhaps my technique was off. I've flow enough raw data and with flight directors to know that utilizing a flight director makes the cross check and flight precision easier, and it really doesn't matter if the FD is single cue or dual cue. Perhaps I would like the flight director because as I've gotten older I've also gotten lazier (or tire more quickly). "Easy" makes longer flights more comfortable since an autopilot is not an option unless I could get a field approval. I suppose it's not surprising that the experimental side has the capability available but not the TC side.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

What specific things are you looking for from a FD that would up the game for you vs the HSI, Glide slope, or G3 flying boxes that you have or could have without an autopilot?

In my mind, I don’t see a lot of upside - but I might be missing something. Interested in your POV.

+1
I ignore the FD and turned off the flying boxes because I found them distracting, AI and HSI is all I need. But an autopilot is a must have for me, no way am I going to hand fly on long cross country trips (3+ hours).

 

[WDD]

What plane do you have that an auto pilot isn’t approved?

 

[Warmi]

GRT avionics displays can do that…

 

[farmrjohn]

What plane do you have that an auto pilot isn’t approved?

Alon A2 Aircoupe. You can find in under Univair TCDS A-787. To my knowledge there are no approved autopilots for any Er/Aircoupe except Brittain, which is long out of production.

GRT avionics displays can do that…

Yes, I currently have their Mini Ga installed which has flight director function (and moving map, synthetic vision, HIS boxes, engine data display, etc as well) but it is only for VFR flight. It can also control their autopilot servos, but is precluded from sending data for TC airplanes. While I like it I would like a larger display that could be used for IFR and the GRT larger displays would require a field approval for that, if it was even possible. That's why it would be nice if the Garmin FD worked similarly. I don't know if the Dynon display would work, but TCDS A-787 is not on their AML for the Skyview system.

 

[ateamer]

Why would you put all those electronics in an Ercoupe?

 

[WDD]

Nice plane!

Could you install an auto pilot without the servos, and to make it legal tag it INOP? It wouldn’t be functional. Splitting hairs here - definitely gray area.

 

[Arnold]

In the old days I flew a Shorts 360 which had only a flight director and no electronic autopilot (the voice activated autopilot sitting to my right usually was operational though). While I do not have much experience with Garmin products, the general architecture of these things is one or more (RVSM requires 2) Flight Guidance Computers driving other devices, such as a flight director and/or an autopilot. I have minimal experience with Garmin G3X with a G500? autopilot it was possible to disconnect the autopilot and still have FD bars. Which makes me wonder if the person you were talking to at Garmin knew what they were talking about.

 

[farmrjohn]

Why would you put all those electronics in an Ercoupe?

Delusions of grandeur (plus, weight savings, reliability, and better information display).

Could you install an auto pilot without the servos, and to make it legal tag it INOP? It wouldn’t be functional. Splitting hairs here - definitely gray area.

I don't think it would be possible to install any autopilot components without a field approval since there are no approved ones available. Perhaps one of the maintenance mavens could confirm that aspect. I asked Garmin about that and they said the autopilot was needed and had to be operational. I think that would actually be a degradation of capabilities if one's autopilot failed and it took the flight director with it. That's when you would really need it. Oh, I also checked with Aspen, and their system is even more autopilot dependant.

Which makes me wonder if the person you were talking to at Garmin knew what they were talking about.

I never actually spoke with anyone, this was all via email exchange to help my note taking. The support person mentioned they checked with other members of the team as well as working with their demonstrator kiosk.

 

[texasclouds]

In an Ercoupe, you look out the windshield. That is your non-artificial horizon. That is your navigation. Weather and traffic too. IFR? Yea, i fly roads too.

 

[Pinecone]

Alon A2 Aircoupe. You can find in under Univair TCDS A-787. To my knowledge there are no approved autopilots for any Er/Aircoupe except Brittain, which is long out of production.



Yes, I currently have their Mini Ga installed which has flight director function (and moving map, synthetic vision, HIS boxes, engine data display, etc as well) but it is only for VFR flight. It can also control their autopilot servos, but is precluded from sending data for TC airplanes. While I like it I would like a larger display that could be used for IFR and the GRT larger displays would require a field approval for that, if it was even possible. That's why it would be nice if the Garmin FD worked similarly. I don't know if the Dynon display would work, but TCDS A-787 is not on their AML for the Skyview system.

So basically you have an autopilot, but without servos.

So the statement that the auto pilot drives the flight director is correct, at least for GA.

That said, the T-38 and early A-10A (prior to the mid-90s), had flight directors without autopilots.

 

[Pinecone]

I think that would actually be a degradation of capabilities if one's autopilot failed and it took the flight director with it. That's when you would really need it. Oh, I also checked with Aspen, and their system is even more autopilot dependant.

You keep missing the point. The autopilot generates the information for the flight director. Basically, the FD shows you the commands that the AP is sending to the servos. No autopilot, no info for the FD.

Basically, there is no real market for an FD without AP. But there is a market for AP without FD (my plane has this).

 

[farmrjohn]

In an Ercoupe, you look out the windshield. That is your non-artificial horizon. That is your navigation. Weather and traffic too. IFR? Yea, i fly roads too.

Looking back at my responses to date I've missed one major point (like writing instructions for someone else and you fail to convey all of your knowledge on the subject so they miss some important information)-I'm toying with the idea of getting recurrent for IFR. Why with an Aircoupe? My home airport is subject to an IFR marine layer several months of the year while just a few miles to the east is VFR. It would be nice to punch through the layer to find sunshine rather than sitting on the ground in the gloom. Depart VFR you say? I'd need the bases at least 1500' (they're usually 1000-1200') to satisfy cloud clearance and ground clearance since the surrounding airspace is class E and it's a built up area.

So basically you have an autopilot, but without servos.

So the statement that the auto pilot drives the flight director is correct, at least for GA.

That said, the T-38 and early A-10A (prior to the mid-90s), had flight directors without autopilots.

You keep missing the point. The autopilot generates the information for the flight director. Basically, the FD shows you the commands that the AP is sending to the servos. No autopilot, no info for the FD.

Basically, there is no real market for an FD without AP. But there is a market for AP without FD (my plane has this).

Perhaps it would be a case of where the "brains" of the autopilot are. If they reside in the same place as the rest of the display or it's associated components why can't they be used to display the FD? If GRT can do it, why do Aspen and Garmin require additional components, and at greater cost. As mentioned above, not all TC planes are approved for autopilots. As an aside Garmin did indicate to me that the FD function was available on the G3X experimental side without the autopilot. Oh well, it's probably not worth the hassle and expense to get and keep current just to punch through a thin layer if desired, it's not like I'd be doing Cat II-III approaches on a regular basis

 

[WDD]

I think the experimental G3 has an autopilot built into it already, thus you don’t need a separate additional AP unit.

The nuclear option would be to convert your plane to Experimental and then put in what you need. IMHO it wouldn’t be worth it.

I’m any case, good for you getting your currency back on your IFR!

 

[asicer]

I don't think you should need that much guidance to punch through a layer. That's like less than 0.1 on the Hobbs, right?

 

[Pinecone]

Perhaps it would be a case of where the "brains" of the autopilot are. If they reside in the same place as the rest of the display or it's associated components why can't they be used to display the FD? If GRT can do it, why do Aspen and Garmin require additional components, and at greater cost. As mentioned above, not all TC planes are approved for autopilots. As an aside Garmin did indicate to me that the FD function was available on the G3X experimental side without the autopilot. Oh well, it's probably not worth the hassle and expense to get and keep current just to punch through a thin layer if desired, it's not like I'd be doing Cat II-III approaches on a regular basis

Yes, basically it requires all the parts of the autopilot except the servos.

As you stated, the G3X will do it in experimental aircraft, but I have heard the GFC-500 control head is just the switches, so likely the AP/FD brains are in the G3X. But again, not enough market to certify an FD without AP. I am sure, if you offered them enough money, they would certify it for your Ercoupe, but that would cost more than buying a fleet of Ercoupes.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

I’m still confused why OP needs a FD to tell him how to fly the plane, in IFR?!

 

[Pinecone]

Especially to just penetrate a thin marine layer on climbout, with a 1000+ ceiling.

 

[iamtheari]

As you stated, the G3X will do it in experimental aircraft, but I have heard the GFC-500 control head is just the switches, so likely the AP/FD brains are in the G3X. But again, not enough market to certify an FD without AP. I am sure, if you offered them enough money, they would certify it for your Ercoupe, but that would cost more than buying a fleet of Ercoupes.

I don't know what the GFC 500 requires, but my understanding is that it consists of the GMC 507 control head and one or more GSA 28 servos. I have a G3X Touch in my experimental and I do have the GMC 507 and GSA 28s, but the experimental installation of a G3X Touch does not require the GMC 507. The GDU (main G3X Touch display) can control the autopilot servos, which themselves contain most of the brains of the autopilot system. The GMC 507 is really just a mode controller in the experimental install.

The GMC 507 also happens to have some attitude reference system of its own, though. You can turn on cross-checking between the GMC and other G3X LRUs, although I found that to have problems and turned it off. My guess is that the attitude reference system in the GMC is 95% there to make the STC version of the GFC 500 a standalone installation that can be interfaced with a G5, G3X Touch, or other STC-based EFIS.

I don't know if the G3X Touch in an experimental installation can show flight director cues without autopilot servos and/or a GMC, although I could probably test it in the plane someday. I do suspect that the STC/certified installations of these components are a lot more regimented, though, so my data may not apply to the OP's situation.