Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

What is the top-end avionics fit for a European homebuilt aircraft and suitable for IFR, with autopilot?

The G900x is TSO / eTSOed.

That’s a good question Peter, if the 900x is legal to fly ifr in the US (the lack of clarity on this, associated with the high price, could explain the little commercial success of this system among experimentals).

So the front panel of the 900x is not certified but its remote units (in particular the waas gps) are certified, correct?

The G900x is TSO / eTSOed.

In that case the only thing which prevents it being installed in a certified aircraft is the FAA requirement that

  • EFIS
  • autopilot

require a TC or STC. Can’t be done as a Field Approval or a DER 8110.

Obviously nobody is going to do a TC. The G500+ is the only marketable option for a cert aircraft.
Nobody is going to privately do an STC; not when you can put in a G500 with a W box.
And Garmin won’t do an STC because they want the product differentiation w.r.t. the G1000 for which they deliberately don’t do an STC either (except the King Air etc).

Even more interesting about the ETSO. That would cover a G-reg homebuilt.

if the 900x is legal to fly ifr in the US

It must be… so it looks like the FAA does allow the use of a TSOd navigator installed without an STC. It probably has to because an STC for a non-cert aircraft (no TC!) makes no sense

So the front panel of the 900x is not certified but its remote units (in particular the waas gps) are certified, correct?

That could be one route. If it shares the GPS with say the G1000… it would be mad of Garmin to not re-use the G1000 stuff. In business you always re-use technology – even if you label it completely differently.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

But if the same elements are used in an uncertified box/system … I doubt it that the GPS is “certified” in that case.

But if the same elements are used in an uncertified box/system … I doubt it that the GPS is “certified” in that case.

Yes, but the Evolution would have a zero, zilch, nowt, absolutely no sales potential whatever in the USA if it could not fly IFR.

A FL300 300kt turboprop, VFR, limited to 17999ft?

No way.

They must have found a solution.

What would happen in Europe, nobody knows. But presumably it will be possible to fit an external GPS if necessary.

Anyway, the buyer is supposed to perform, hey, 51% of the work, so one could choose the outside paint and choose the avionics as the 51%?

According to google, the Evolution I saw is/was owned by somebody in Czech Rep.

Not something I would want to be a test case for, admittedly. But usable homebuilt IFR in Europe is years away anyway.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

There will always be one, or two, people who will buy such a toy – no matter what restrictions apply. And then – i am yet to hear that a FPL was denied because of a/c type … have you ever heard such a thing? If you have a XPDR and know what you’re doing ….

edit: I do not see how you could legally fly an Evolution IFR in german airspace

Last Edited by Flyer59 at 10 May 17:08

I moved the engine MTBF related posts to Hangar Talk

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
How does that map onto the G900 being non-certified? I must be missing something. AIUI, to fly IFR in the USA you need a certified GPS but you don’t need a certified MFD/PFD/EHSI/etc and presumably the LAA will be the same.

Peter – The G900X is the system designation and the system is uncertified. However, AIUI, the line replaceable units (LRUs) that make up the G900X are the exact same ones that are used in the G1000, so it is easy for Garmin to make the G900X WAAS GPS LRUs certified (just supply the paperwork). I don’t know without hunting it down but I expect the display LRUs also form part of the certified navigator, because the GPS LRU doesn’t have its own display in the way that e.g. a GTN 650 does. I therefore imagine Garmin supplies the certification paperwork for just those LRUs necessary to comply with the FAA regulations, so that the remaining LRUs (and the total system) are technically uncertified. It actually doesn’t matter how many are certified (as long as it’s less than 100%), because they just need to ensure the G900X can’t be fitted into certified aircraft (in order to maintain different prices).

The FAA does not require TSOs for the err… “annunciators” (otherwise known as non-certified EFISs), which allows Dynon, GRT et al to supply EFISs for experimental aircraft for use in conjunction with a certified navigator in IMC. Effectively, the EFIS is flight instrumentation that can also act as a secondary display for the navigator. I don’t think the LAA will venture beyond what has been proven to be safe in widespread use in experimentals, because I can’t see how they would make the argument for CS-23 equivalence.

Occasionally, there is talk of the experimental EFIS manufacturers developing a navigator that complies with TSO-C145 but that’s a big big undertaking (look at how long the IFD540 took) and I think Dynon, GRT etc have had their hands full dealing with a market downturn and Garmin’s entry into the experimental EFIS market.

Top Farm, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom

Thanks for that input, Raiz. It all makes perfect sense.

Incidentally, in the current UK LAA magazine article on the IFR programme, they say that as far as EFIS products they have only tested the G900 (no problems) and the AFS4500 (some issues with a cluttered display). So they have some way to go.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top