Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Garmin GTN series V3 software approval by EASA

The GTN V3 software has been out for FAA aircraft since December but we are still waiting for EASA approval to install it. Does anyone have a link to where that approval process could be followed on the EASA website please?

Gloucester UK (EGBJ)

I wouldn't work with an avionics company that lets me wait for V3 and I have never dealt with one...

No responsible avionics shop would install unapproved software in a certified GPS. A Aera 500 is a lot cheaper way to fly like that.

Gloucester UK (EGBJ)

I think it depends.

Examples:

When my TB20 was new, the CAA inspector looked at the KLN94, decided he didn't like it and decided it is VFR only. So he ordered the avionics man at Air Touring Ltd to config it for VFR only (no approaches) as a condition of granting the G-reg CofA. Totally baseless and brainless! Solution: once the CAA man was out of the door, the dealer switched it back to IFR. Or any user with a brain would download the KLN94 IM and do it himself.

This long-term anti-GPS attitude caused the chickens to come home to roost for the CAA in years to come, in the form of hundreds of serious CAS busts every year - because a large % of GA to this day believes GPS is illegal, illegal for "primary navigation", is the work of the devil, etc.

When Socata first certified the WX500 stormscope in the TB range, the DGAC demanded that the display does not rotate with the aircraft heading, because of it did, the pilot might use the stormscope to avoid thunderstorms, which the DGAC thought should not be a capability in this type of aircraft. So Socata removed the heading data connection to the WX500 (but left it as a plug which could be plugged in). Totally baseless and brainless! Solution: every Socata dealer (if faced with a customer who knew what "heading" was) plugged the plug back in.

I can think of others...

The GPS firmware version is way below any of the above...

What business does EASA have approving a particular GPS firmware version? They approved Garmin as an EASA 145 and EASA 21 company. Do they need to approve every Jeppesen database version?

Now, if the GPS firmware gave you a facility to auto land your plane in zero-zero, that would be something else

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

To play devil's advocate here (I'm also frustratedly waiting for v3, and have been since June last year):

What business does EASA have approving a particular GPS firmware version? They approved Garmin as an EASA 145 and EASA 21 company. Do they need to approve every Jeppesen database version?

In these modern avionics the software is as relevant as the hardware. Sure you need to have hardware that can do the basic IO work, but it seems to me that these boxes are increasingly just general purpose computers with plugin radio, audio and video cards and lots of serial interfaces (as far as I can tell, the GTN has about 15 serial interfaces of varying types). Rumor has it that the new series of Garmin NAV/COMs use the radio cards and central controller board of the GTN series, with a different front bezel and no GPS receiver.

If the software adds new ways of decoding the higher level protocols, then it seems reasonable that it should be subject to some level of scrutiny. My issue is with the need to duplicate the work already done by the FAA.

I'm waiting on v3 to fix a minor bug. Why does this tiny fix have to take the best part of a year? This will teach me to be an "early adopter"...

EGEO

In these modern avionics the software is as relevant as the hardware.

Yes, but that's always been true. A GNS430 is just a micro, RAM, ROM, some I/O, an LCD, and some software. Same as every other GPS.

So why the change?

Does EASA inspect the firmware source code for bugs? I am fairly sure they don't, so what is behind this?

Maybe this is the quid pro quo for granting Garmin the EASA AML STC which was an astonishing achievement which enabled Garmin to crush their competition in the European market. I always wondered how the hell Garmin achieved that, after EASA openly swore they would do an AML STC (which drives a coach and horses through the whole concept of avionics certification, "EASA's every installer is an idiot sort of prescriptive style") over their dead body.

This will teach me to be an "early adopter"...

It's worth reading the US forums; they are packed with bug and problem reports on stuff which nobody in Europe knows about...

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

This software update definitely needed FAA approval as our Garmin rep told me waiting for them was some of the extra delay after the original V3 ship date.

I'm sure it is just a Eurocrat's rubber stamp but I have no way of checking on it's progress which is the reason for my original question.

At the moment our GTN will not auto tune our KN62A when we select a paired VOR or ILS. Hardly a big issue but like jwoolard we have been waiting in our case since last May for the fix. Another "bug" is the GTN doesn't know anything about Litres but I'm told V3 does not resolve that and we have to wait for the version after. Strange as the old GNS series does know about litres.

That said it's a excellent bit of kit to use on a day to day basis. I just wish EASA were not clogging up the works for no reason.

Gloucester UK (EGBJ)

There is no earthly reason why FAA and EASA shouldn't have mutual recognition of each other's licensing and approvals, but this is bureaucracy we are talking about so process is what matters outcome is irrelevant.

Johnm
Gloucs, United Kingdom

There is no earthly reason why FAA and EASA shouldn't have mutual recognition of each other's licensing and approvals, but this is bureaucracy we are talking about so process is what matters outcome is irrelevant.

My understanding of the recent FAA-EASA treaty is that data used to obtain STCs etc is supposed to be mutually recognised.

One old hand in avionics explained this to me with an example: if he gets me to pay him £2k for an FAA DER 8110-3 package, he can then use that to obtain an EASA STC which he can sell to other customers.

But direct FAA STC acceptance by EASA doesn't exist and IMHO never will. Only AFAIK Australia accepts FAA STC as they come.

I suppose EASA might argue that the FAA doesn't accept EASA STCs either, and they would be right, but that line would be a hostage to fortune since the FAA accepts the EASA-1 form as equivalent to an 8130-3 in every respect, and the FAA may well one day just start accepting EASA STCs. Also very few companies will do an EASA STC before an FAA STC, because it's generally a stupid business strategy.

I am back to wondering what the hell is EASA actually approving in this. If they don't inspect the source code, all they can do is agree with (or disagree with) the documented functionality, so why is that taking them so long?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

There is presumably a department responsible who have to justify their existence. Hence tick boxes, consider the update, then just sign it off effectively automatically. This sort of pointless, demarcation driven bureaucracy takes time.

EGTK Oxford
18 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top