Garmin just dropped a bomb on the avionics market...

flyingcheesehead said:
If you do replace your 250XL (which is a VFR-only GPS) with a GPS 175 or a GNX 375, you will be able to file and fly direct flight plans, fly GPS approaches, and fly those approaches to LPV minimums.
Click to expand...
This contradicts what Mr. MooneyDriver78 said, although perhaps not what he meant to say, and I hope you're right. I'm in the same situation as Peter, where my panel has only 1 CDI, currently driven by a VOR receiver. If I were to attach it to the GPS 175, I'd lose my VOR backup, which I really do not want to do. But it begs the question: if driving CDI from the 175 is not required to fly LPV approach, then what is that capability for?
 
I doubt there will any mention in the STC installation manual any kind of CDI sharing or wiring diagrams to support the needed switching. IOW it will likely require a dedicated CDI per the STC.
 
bnt83 said:
I doubt there will any mention in the STC installation manual any kind of CDI sharing or wiring diagrams to support the needed switching. IOW it will likely require a dedicated CDI per the STC.
Click to expand...

Hmm. So, we would have to go from two NAV/COMs down to one, unless we want 3 CDIs.
 
C_Parker said:
Thanks, so there's no way to add a switch to switch between the two sources?
Click to expand...

There are some CDIs that can switch between GPS and VLOC... But usually they're switching either between the two parts of the same radio (in the case of a GPS/Nav/Com like the 430W or 650), or two different radios of the same brand (such as a KLN 89B and a KX155). I'm not sure what is available in your particular case. What kind of a Nav radio do you have?

To clarify, I would ONLY be able to fly direct IFR? No routing through airways, VOR's, etc?
Click to expand...

You can fly however you want IFR when you have an IFR GPS. You can't fly direct without one, you're stuck with VORs if you don't have an IFR GPS.

zaitcev said:
This contradicts what Mr. MooneyDriver78 said, although perhaps not what he meant to say, and I hope you're right. I'm in the same situation as Peter, where my panel has only 1 CDI, currently driven by a VOR receiver. If I were to attach it to the GPS 175, I'd lose my VOR backup, which I really do not want to do. But it begs the question: if driving CDI from the 175 is not required to fly LPV approach, then what is that capability for?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you need a CDI to fly an approach. You are not allowed to just look at the magenta line...

What nav radio do you have right now?

If you don't have space for another CDI in your panel, that's a great reason to get a G5 HSI...

PPC1052 said:
Is there a CDI that you can toggle between navigation devices?
Click to expand...

Again, some can, but generally between the same brands. I'm not sure what compatibility there is among different brands. I do know that I kept the same HSI (King KI-525A) when switching from King to Garmin.

Maybe @Jesse Saint can enlighten us as to the requirements for switching, and indicator compatibility.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
You can fly however you want IFR when you have an IFR GPS. You can't fly direct without one, you're stuck with VORs if you don't have an IFR GPS.
Click to expand...
Caveat: there's a couple of qualifying asterisks and footnotes if you don't have WAAS, which the 175/375 do have (mainly clarifying if someone decides on a used box instead).
 
C_Parker said:
To clarify, I would ONLY be able to fly direct IFR? No routing through airways, VOR's, etc?
Click to expand...

I think you have that backwards. Without the GPS you have ONLY airways. With GPS you MAY go direct.

PPC1052 said:
Hmm. So, we would have to go from two NAV/COMs down to one, unless we want 3 CDIs.
Click to expand...

One CDI for your nav radio and One for your GPS should be sufficient. Depending on the NAV/COM that might not be an issue. For example, the SL30 has it's own CDI display which can do in a pinch.
 
PPC1052 said:
Is there a CDI that you can toggle between navigation devices?
Click to expand...
I *think* a KI 209A will allow you to switch between a NAV/COM and a GPS Navigator. The KI 209 will not. If you have a KI 209A you're probably good. If you don't then you may as well look at a G5 install. This is the same boat I'm in, don't know if I have a 209 or a 209A, crossing fingers...

Edit: Just to follow up, I would be willing to sacrifice ILS approaches to gain LPV if I didn't want to upgrade the CDI or install an HSI...
 
Last edited:
Morgan3820 said:
Sometimes a single word is sufficient. But, I will augment.
Avidyne is better
Click to expand...

That’s funny, what about their indemnification clause, and I’ve seen them come up with the disclaimer on boot up? Garmin doesn’t do that.


Tom
 
asicer said:
Caveat: there's a couple of qualifying asterisks and footnotes if you don't have WAAS, which the 175/375 do have (mainly clarifying if someone decides on a used box instead).
Click to expand...

At this point in time, installing a non-WAAS GPS is pretty much into the realm of foolish. But yeah, if you don't have WAAS you'll need to have a more-expensive ADS-B solution (because it will need its own WAAS GPS), you won't be able to fly to LPV minimums or take advantage of the vertical guidance available on most GPS approaches, you'll need to figure your IFR alternate as if you didn't have a GPS IIRC, and I think there's another couple of things. @asicer, do you remember what the other limitations are on non-WAAS GPS?

Ravioli said:
One CDI for your nav radio and One for your GPS should be sufficient. Depending on the NAV/COM that might not be an issue. For example, the SL30 has it's own CDI display which can do in a pinch.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that if you don't have a dedicated CDI, the installation cannot be approved for IFR. So, "in a pinch" if your CDI fails, well, in that pinch 91.3 applies. But if you don't install a CDI to begin with, I think you're limited to VFR only.
 
This stuff is still too expensive and non-ARINC, proprietary interfaces complicate things.

I guess I'll stick with homebrew panels and Experimental airplanes. I can do it myself for a tenth of the cost.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I'm pretty sure that if you don't have a dedicated CDI, the installation cannot be approved for IFR. So, "in a pinch" if your CDI fails, well, in that pinch 91.3 applies. But if you don't install a CDI to begin with, I think you're limited to VFR only.
Click to expand...

He said he HAS two CDI's, and was questioning the need for a third. I was opining that two CDI's should be enough and depending on his nav/com he may have 2.5, so to speak.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
At this point in time, installing a non-WAAS GPS is pretty much into the realm of foolish. But yeah, if you don't have WAAS you'll need to have a more-expensive ADS-B solution (because it will need its own WAAS GPS), you won't be able to fly to LPV minimums or take advantage of the vertical guidance available on most GPS approaches, you'll need to figure your IFR alternate as if you didn't have a GPS IIRC, and I think there's another couple of things. @asicer, do you remember what the other limitations are on non-WAAS GPS?
.
Click to expand...
RAIM and you have to pick a route that allows you to revert to VOR/LOC navigation.
 
IK04 said:
I guess I'll stick with homebrew panels and Experimental airplanes. I can do it myself for a tenth of the cost.
Click to expand...

If nothing else, having the experimental stuff cross over to the certified side the way Garmin has been doing the last few years has really illuminated the difference in costs between the certified and experimental markets. When I first discovered the price of the G3X Touch + autopilot for the experimental market a few years ago at Oshkosh, I damn near blew my top. Here was a system that, at the time, could not be installed in a certified airplane - Nothing like it was available in the certified market, in fact - But if it could have been, the cost would have been well into six-figure territory. And there it was for experimentals, for a total cost still in the four-figure range.

Basically, what I need to complete my panel right now is a 10" G3X Touch (with engine monitoring), a G5, and a GFC 500. I'm glad we can get these things for certified aircraft now... But the combo for certified aircraft costs $24,639, while for experimentals it's a mere $7,943, less than 1/3 the cost of certified.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Basically, what I need to complete my panel right now is a 10" G3X Touch (with engine monitoring), a G5, and a GFC 500. I'm glad we can get these things for certified aircraft now... But the combo for certified aircraft costs $24,639, while for experimentals it's a mere $7,943, less than 1/3 the cost of certified.
Click to expand...

Thanks, FAA. Why do we get forcibly taxed to pay for these muppets, again..?
 
Katamarino said:
Thanks, FAA. Why do we get forcibly taxed to pay for these muppets, again..?
Click to expand...

I'm not against *some* level of required testing and oversight. I do feel safer in a certified aircraft. And to be fair, the new "kinder, gentler FAA" is what has allowed things like the G5, GFC 500, and G3X Touch to become realities at the price points they are now, rather than the aforementioned six figures. But, it does suck that it still costs so much more. :(
 
This is what happens when you have them completely unaccountable. Pointless FAA rubbish triples the price? FAA guy doesn't care, he gets paid just the same. In fact, he likes it, as all the pointless work kept him in a job. We just have to look at MCAS to see how much value the certification process adds..!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
... And to be fair, the new "kinder, gentler FAA" is what has allowed things like the G5, GFC 500, and G3X Touch to become realities at the price points they are now...:(
Click to expand...

'kindler, gentler FAA'??!!?? BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! that's a good one.
 
Katamarino said:
This is what happens when you have them completely unaccountable. Pointless FAA rubbish triples the price? FAA guy doesn't care, he gets paid just the same. In fact, he likes it, as all the pointless work kept him in a job. We just have to look at MCAS to see how much value the certification process adds..!
Click to expand...

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that the certification process is "pointless".

eman1200 said:
'kindler, gentler FAA'??!!?? BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! that's a good one.
Click to expand...

Maybe you weren't around back in the day when a simple S-TEC 30 for north of $10K was the cheapest 2-axis autopilot you could get in a certified aircraft?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
..Maybe you weren't around back in the day when a simple S-TEC 30 for north of $10K was the cheapest 2-axis autopilot you could get in a certified aircraft?
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with 'kindler and gentler FAA'? and I thought the stec was quite a bit more than that.
 
eman1200 said:
what does that have to do with 'kindler and gentler FAA'?
Click to expand...

They have relaxed the certification requirements, which is what has enabled things like the GFC 500, G5, and G3X Touch to be brought to certified aircraft at the price points we see them today.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
They have relaxed the certification requirements, which is what has enabled things like the GFC 500, G5, and G3X Touch to be brought to certified aircraft at the price points we see them today.
Click to expand...

Do you think we'll see more accidents as a result of this relaxation of requirements?
 
Katamarino said:
Do you think we'll see more accidents as a result of this relaxation of requirements?
Click to expand...

Unlikely. I think they have looked at both experimental and certified GA, and realized that the gains to be had from relaxing the requirements somewhat, while it may cause a rare accident, would likely improve enough pilots' situational awareness that the overall accident rate would decrease, and made the smart decision to look at that overall accident rate as opposed to strictly the equipment-related accident rate.
 
Katamarino said:
Thanks, FAA. Why do we get forcibly taxed to pay for these muppets, again..?
Click to expand...

Let's be fair here. They do allow the EXABers to fly with impunity over our heads. The question that needs to be asked is why are those muppets given such allowance but us certified muppets are not?

They're certainly speaking out of both sides of their mouth if they dare cite that "certified safety" garbage argument; they wholesale abrogated the legitimacy of that position the second they allowed the EXABers to derive primary attitude information in IMC with a lower level of certification (thence cost) than we are forced to.

This all goes right back to the unsolved murder of the primary non-commercial category during the part 23 re-write implementation period. It was in the proposal, it got signed into law, and it disappeared from the FAA's plan when they finally got around to doing their congressionally mandated job. Not an eyebrow raised, weird.

flyingcheesehead said:
I'm not against *some* level of required testing and oversight. I do feel safer in a certified aircraft. [....]But, it does suck that it still costs so much more. :(
Click to expand...

But EXABers are allowed to fly over my head on "less safe" stuff. The FAA is cool with that. So I wonder, which is it? Do they truly believe certified is safer, and if so why would they endanger my family by allowing EXABers fly over our heads for cheaper? Or, if they don't truly believe that, which is the position I'm inclined to believe by virtue of the fact EXABers are in fact allowed to fly over urban areas and controlled airspace, then can we really crucify the FAA entirely? They're obviously allowing it.

So Occam's Razor. Who would have an inherent interest in keeping a certified can otherwise owned and operated recreationally, under the draconian certification rules of a de facto "revenue aviation" pricing structure? I can think of two at least: the OEMs, and the FAA. They [OEM] want legacy certified cans in the scrap yards right yesterday. They don't want them flying another 30 years. EXAB rules would allow the latter, and well we just can't have that now can we? :rolleyes:

Ultimately that is why if I ever get a boner for avionics, experimentals is the route I'll take. I am legitimately happy for the announcement by Garmin to finally offer a WAAS GPS navigator for 5K, I think it's gonna be a good thing for the legacy fleet. But I'm not really encouraged to spend a nickle on avionics for my spam can. Whatever money I sink will be repair/replace only. I would be however, encouraged to fiddle with avionics upgrades in the EXAB side, which is why I'm seriously contemplating going the 2 airplane route going forward as a segway to permanently leaving certified land. For those who can afford the avionics on the certified side, whether outright or by partnership/club/daddy/potato, hey more power to them. I just don't see the value proposition in paying 3x as much for the stated capabilities as a matter of principle, which is certainly my prerogative.

I'm with you though, I'm not ready to crucify the FAA for this on an outright basis. There are co-conspirators in this dynamic, cowards they are.
 
Ravioli said:
He said he HAS two CDI's, and was questioning the need for a third. I was opining that two CDI's should be enough and depending on his nav/com he may have 2.5, so to speak.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I have two nav/coms, and two CDIs. I want to add the GRX 375, but a third CDI seems silly at best and impossible at worst. So, remove one nav/com? Seems like that’s where this is headed, but I would prefer the redundancy and ease of use having the second Nav/com unit if possible.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Unlikely. I think they have looked at both experimental and certified GA, and realized that the gains to be had from relaxing the requirements somewhat, while it may cause a rare accident, would likely improve enough pilots' situational awareness that the overall accident rate would decrease, and made the smart decision to look at that overall accident rate as opposed to strictly the equipment-related accident rate.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Hence my feeling that their previous strict requirements were pointless and counter productive, and my thoughts that even their more "relaxed" process that produces a product with features disabled, for triple the price, is still moronic at best, and probably downright detrimental to safety.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Beautiful panel. The 174 TAS is impressive but schnikes that fuel bill is gonna hurt. :eek:
Click to expand...

I'm sure if I leaned it out it would be around 14 GPH. Breaking the engine in I'm leaving it full rich.
 
hindsight2020 said:
But EXABers are allowed to fly over my head on "less safe" stuff. The FAA is cool with that. So I wonder, which is it? Do they truly believe certified is safer, and if so why would they endanger my family by allowing EXABers fly over our heads for cheaper? Or, if they don't truly believe that, which is the position I'm inclined to believe by virtue of the fact EXABers are in fact allowed to fly over urban areas and controlled airspace, then can we really crucify the FAA entirely? They're obviously allowing it.
Click to expand...
I could be way off on this but I believe the accident stats indicate that experimental most definitely poses a higher risk to pilot and passengers than certified. But I'm not sure there are any stats that indicate experimental pose any significant increase in risk to John Q Public on the ground than certified. Put in that perspective, it doesn't seem strange at all that the FAA would have no problem letting you fly your experimental over urban areas. If we were to suddenly see a spike where experimental crashes were twice as likely to injury or kill people on the ground, I would expect the FAA to start looking very hard at restricting where experimentals are allowed to fly or if they should be allowed to fly at all.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
But the combo for certified aircraft costs $24,639, while for experimentals it's a mere $7,943, less than 1/3 the cost of certified.
Click to expand...

However, once you have the hardware,document ...let’s say you have a hardware failure, can you replace with the experimental version and save yourself some maintenance costs?


Tom
 
Katamarino said:
Thanks, FAA. Why do we get forcibly taxed to pay for these muppets, again..?
Click to expand...

If it was all FAA how is dynon selling their system for same price as experimental + 2k for STC?
 
Dynon's legacy gear (like I have) is available for standard price with a $100 STC purchased from EAA.

So there are multiple price points, it would seem.
 
Y'all should be angry at garmin for raping GA for all these years.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
If they were a non profit I would be, but they are not. Better than the lip service we get from BK.


Tom
Click to expand...

True. Everyone was OK with paying inflated prices for such a long time, why shouldn't they charge a ton for their gear.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
If they were a non profit I would be, but they are not. Better than the lip service we get from BK.
Click to expand...
Come on, the KI-300 with the KA-310 will be available any day now*!

* Technically as long as they eventually ship, it meets the 'any day' criteria.
 
UngaWunga said:
Y'all should be angry at garmin for raping GA for all these years.
Click to expand...

Garmin is not raping GA.... they understand unlike boating, hiking, auto, and other recreational uses for GPS technology where they're blowing thousand of unites out the door, the market is very limited, specialized, and has a few competitors.. How may other non aviation uses are you seeing for a 430W?

Put that aside and IMPO, they are in the right place at the right time with the right product.. my compliments to them.. How may folks have a traditional duel NacComm old school set up have been pining for a IFR legal GPS and don't want to spend $8K on a used piece of equipment... Now the the ADS-B mandate is here I feel many may upgrade to the new unit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top