Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Garmin G3X (merged)

I don’t see any way to avoid the old round instruments, especially a horizon, unless the aircraft has two completely separate electrical systems i.e. two alternators, two batteries, two buses, and crossover switches. Plus duplicated main avionics i.e. two PFDs working from different buses.

Like the Cessna 400, a 737 and all the proper big stuff

Most piston twins don’t have that setup. Most light jets don’t either, I understand.

I don’t think the US avionics relaxations are for Experimentals. They are for fully certified aircraft.

There have been sporadic (confirmed) reports of one or another FSDO permitting something like a Garmin 696 to be panel mounted, on a “doesn’t do any harm” basis, and obviously not connected to an autopilot etc. But take the job to another FSDO and they will show you the door.

As an electronics engineer I don’t see any quality or reliability difference, on today’s “glass” avionics, between TSOd stuff, and uncertified stuff. Obviously a lot of the uncertified stuff has a “toy” look about it (walk around the AERO Friedrichshafen show and see how many people have bought an off the shelf PC board and an accelerometer module, and hacked some software around it) but I am not referring to that. If Aspen could get the EFD1000 certified, with its deadful initial reliability record, certification means very little.

Last Edited by Peter at 11 Mar 12:04
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

There have been sporadic (confirmed) reports of one or another FSDO permitting something like a Garmin 696 to be panel mounted, on a “doesn’t do any harm” basis, and obviously not connected to an autopilot etc.

I’ve had a panel mounted 695 in my C172. No sane inspector would ever object to that over here. The take is “yeah by the letters of the regulations this shouldn’t be there but it makes a lot of sense and no harm and by the way, I didn’t actually see it”.

If Aspen could get the EFD1000 certified, with its deadful initial reliability record, certification means very little.

From an actual product quality standpoint it doesn’t. It only means that every pixel on the EFIS is where the FAA wants it to be. Reading Avidyne’s IFD progress reports, it’s evident that the FAA puts a lot of emphasis on how the screen presentation looks and how the menu buttons operate. For anything beyond user interface, they rely on paperwork.

PS: The GNS430W had a terrible reliability record, too at some point. They had a whole year’s production go bad, both the WAAS antenna and the device. I got struck by both whereas I never had the slightest issue with the Aspen which kept gaining additional functionality through software updates. Nobody talks about Garmin issuing poor quality products but it’s equally justified. There’s another forum user here who keeps losing the GPS signal in the 430W but never had problems with his Aspen.

I’ve heard the opposite, that Tecnam had to add “classical” engine instruments because EASA wouldn’t allow those in the G3X to be used.

Strange, maybe EASA dosn’t see engine instruments as avionics, but as part as required flight instruments. Non certified avionics are acceptable for RTC LSA and VLA, with the exception for transponder.

I don’t see any way to avoid the old round instruments, especially a horizon, unless the aircraft has two completely separate electrical systems i.e. two alternators, two batteries, two buses, and crossover switches. Plus duplicated main avionics i.e. two PFDs working from different buses.

I would always recommend mechanical back-up instruments. This dual setup is getting more and more in place on twin aircraft. Especially for twin Diesel aircraft which also rely on the electrical system for their engine operation.
Most advanced avionics offer their own backup battery at least as an option (Garmin G1000, most electronic horizons, Aspen EFD1000). Most still recommend ASI, ALT and AI as a backup.

If Aspen could get the EFD1000 certified, with its deadful initial reliability record, certification means very little.

Sure you don’t like Aspen EFD1000, but I don’t understand, I also seen Garmin G1000, Avidyne Entegra and the uncertified Dynon EFIS and GRT failed. To be honest, I haven’t seen any manufacturer which hadn’t failed anything from my own experiance. For example the high voltage displays on the Bendix/King equipment, fails as well. I had one other brand, which had a return rate of over 150% :-(

Their is a big difference in how companies solve this problem.

I’ve had a panel mounted 695 in my C172. No sane inspector would ever object to that over here.

This combination could be certified, I hold several approvals for this kind of equipment. A garmin G3X would be different, as it is much more advanced.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

Strange, maybe EASA dosn’t see engine instruments as avionics, but as part as required flight instruments.

I’m happy to avoid any exposure to EASA but I’ve always been under the impression that engine and electrical instruments (along with a lot of other equipment) are included in FAA airframe certification and don’t require separate TSO approval. I got that impression from both my aircraft having low quality car-type (mechanical) instruments monitoring the engine, including the factory installed tachometer on one of the planes. Whether non-TSO engine and electrical instruments are mechanical or electronic is surely not the issue?

Last Edited by Silvaire at 11 Mar 19:08

I’ve had a panel mounted 695 in my C172. No sane inspector would ever object to that over here.

This combination could be certified

Certified to do what? B-RNAV???

If not, why would one certify an installation that doesn’t need certification? That would be quite masochistic.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 11 Mar 19:20
Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

There are also minor change approvals to panel mount a PowerFLARM.

In reality most avionics installers and inspectors do it without approval. That’s how I did my 695 panel mount.

Certified to do what? B-RNAV??? If not, why would one certify an installation that doesn’t need certification? That would be quite masochistic.

One can not add equipement to the aircraft (fixed) without approval (under EASA regulations). Thefore the mounting, power outlet and antenna installation (if needed) need to be approved by EASA for that aircraft. The equipment itself can not be used for navigation.

Because of this, I just apply for an approval for my customers. Just to be legal and prevent them from having troubles with this equipment during an flightline inspection / check by CAA, or during ARC inspection for example.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

The equipment itself can not be used for navigation.

Is there a rule which states that, Jesse?

It would be unusual. I have never seen a written rule, for private flight, stating what equipment can be used for what. Carried, yes, but used, no.

I just apply for an approval for my customers

What is the scope for the approval?

It should not be possible to get a permanent installation of a non-certified item approved at all, for a certified aircraft. What can be approved, AIUI, is perhaps a power connector or the mounting bracket. But if EASA is operating an approval scheme for uncertified GPSs, while stating the GPS cannot be used for navigation, and presumably taking some money for it, that is a complete perversion of the system, IMHO.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Handheld GPS units are not certified for anything. They are not certified for VFR nor certified for IFR. These units are for reference only, and are not allowed to be used as a sole source of navigation information.

That most people use it like a certified unit, that is something complety different.

The scope is for the installation of the GPS unit, including antenna, power connections and / or other interfaces and the mounting.

It is NOT a scam. You can chose to have certain uncertified products in your aircraft (such as flarm, Zoan traffic boxes, handheld GPS, I-Pad, “Car” stereo, HF, VHF, UHF radios for transmission outside airbands, custom made avionics). Because it is uncertified it doesn’t mean that it can’t be installed, or that it couldn’t be used. Their could be limitations on the use.

It requires (just as certified products) an installation approval. Do note that the installation approval for certified products is much more easy. With uncertified products more testing should be done, and proof should be documented.

This is also the route under EASA regulations to have specialist equipment installed, like camera equipement, marine radio, SAR equipment, radio relay installations.

Again, this is no scam by EASA. It just makes is possible to install the kind of equipment as mentioned above. Under FAA regulation you can do exactly the same, and also the installation of non certified products approved, such as the Air Gizmo mounting with handheld GPS.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

Just reading the latest issue of Aviation Consumer….interesting article on the Garmin G3X Touch

Although this unit is only for the experimental market at present, the article alludes to a possible change to FAR Part23 which may see units like this permitted in certified aircraft…..worth waiting for…

Last Edited by AnthonyQ at 10 May 15:42
YPJT, United Arab Emirates
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top