I have to start by saying that I really did search the forum for this and found nothing.... of course, I could just be really bad at searching, so forgive me if this horse has been beaten to death.
I have a 1959 Cessna 182, and my vacuum pump recently seized. It used to drive an artificial horizon and a DG. I am a VFR pilot with a VFR panel, so I don't really need these instruments but it is nice to have just incase.
Instead of replacing the pump, I was thinking about getting a Garmin G5 and ditching the vacuum gauges. As most of you know they make a Certified version and an Experimental version. The only real difference is the software and that the Certified version includes a battery backup which is an option on the experimental version..... oh and the experimental version does more and is half the price.
So finally my question. Since an artificial horizon is not a required instrument on a VFR panel, can I install the experimental G5 in my aircraft?

The reason I think that I can is that I was at an Aviation Expo and talked to a man at the JPI booth, and he mentioned that if an instrument is not a primary instrument, it doesn't have to be certified. I wrote an email to my local FSDO and it has been a few days and I have head nothing. I could call them, but i kinda want the answer in writing.

I'd appreciate anyone's experience on this...

Thanks

Read this

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ors-easier

then read this

https://www.seaerospace.com/documents/F ... cement.pdf

I installed the original non-STC'd version of the Garmin G5 in my C180 a couple years ago,
as a minor alteration in accordance with the policy statement guidelines.

There's been at least one thread here on BCP in which this was discussed extensively.

And I followed hotrod180's lead and did the same. The experimental version has more capability and features than the dumbed down certified, plus it's cheaper.

What kind of paperwork does the Experimental version of the G5 come with? I am assuming that it is tso'd??

MBpilot88A wrote:What kind of paperwork does the Experimental version of the G5 come with? I am assuming that it is tso'd??

The Experimental version is not TSOd but neither is the STCd version.

Interested in this too because when I looked into this a while ago: Even tho the instrument is not required for primary flight, TSO'd or not you still need some basis to install it in the panel. Putting it in the pilot's primary view further implies it is used for flight reference (why else would you put it right in front of the pilot) further complicating how it's approved.

But, this along with many other things all boils down to what you and your IA are comfortable with.
One man's major is another man's minor.

When I read the policy statement, I saw nothing about TSO, PMA, or similar.
But just to be sure, I did check with a FSDO inspector, then my IA checked with his PMI (a different guy).
Neither one had a problem with it.
But FWIW this is a VFR airplane.
If you have an IFR-equipped airplane and need to do IFR certs on it,
there may be some other requirements.

Besides doing a logbook entry, I saved a copy of the emails from the 2 inspectors,
along with a copy of the policy statement.
Here's a copy of the logbook entry:

hotrod180 wrote:But FWIW this is a VFR airplane.
If you have an IFR-equipped airplane and need to do IFR certs on it,
there may be some other requirements.

That's a big differentiator. AI/DG are not required for VFR flight, so secondary instruments will be just fine. I inquired with my IA about using less expensive but mechanically/functionally capable non-"blessed" instruments knowing it would be an IFR panel some day, and his response was "hell no". He's the one signing it off, so that was that. If I were going to keep it VFR-only I'd have pushed a lot harder.

The problem you MAY run into lies with which FSDO serves (and I use the term loosely) your district, and how they feel about this sort of stuff.

We installed non tso'd instruments similar to the G 5 in some airplanes, with a placard stating "Not for Primary Information" next to them. The FSDO signed field approvals. Later, their management came back and said that was illegal, and they had to be removed.

Etc. Problem is, there is no consistency between FSDOs. One thing that might help is getting a copy of field approval from another FSDO, and approach your FSDO with that.

Or, just do it.

MTV

We stuck a GRT mini in a 140 a while back as a logbook entry. If memory serves it was ok because the grt was removable/portable, or something like that.

Bagarre wrote:

MBpilot88A wrote:What kind of paperwork does the Experimental version of the G5 come with? I am assuming that it is tso'd??

The Experimental version is not TSOd but neither is the STCd version.

Interested in this too because when I looked into this a while ago: Even tho the instrument is not required for primary flight, TSO'd or not you still need some basis to install it in the panel. Putting it in the pilot's primary view further implies it is used for flight reference (why else would you put it right in front of the pilot) further complicating how it's approved.

But, this along with many other things all boils down to what you and your IA are comfortable with.
One man's major is another man's minor.

I am my IA, so I need to be able to feel 100% confident that I can install one legally. At this point I'm not convinced and am not willing to risk my career over a $1,000 difference in price.

Thanks all for your help on this. It is a bit frustrating that all the FSDO's aren't on the same page. From my point a view, it is either legal or it's not. If the FSDO can't specifically point to where the law says it is not legal, then it is got to be legal.


Bagarre

"Putting it in the pilot's primary view further implies it is used for flight reference (why else would you put it right in front of the pilot) further complicating how it's approved."

Could this be solved with a placard that advises not to pay any attention to the shiny expensive gizmo in plain sight?

Hotrod 180 - what was the overall weight savings of shedding two instruments, pump, and all the crap that goes along with them for the G5?

CT_Pilot wrote:Hotrod 180 - what was the overall weight savings of shedding two instruments, pump, and all the crap that goes along with them for the G5?

I removed 14 pounds of vacuum instruments & related stuff, and added one pound of G5.

Skeletool wrote:Thanks all for your help on this. It is a bit frustrating that all the FSDO's aren't on the same page. From my point a view, it is either legal or it's not. If the FSDO can't specifically point to where the law says it is not legal, then it is got to be legal.


Bagarre

"Putting it in the pilot's primary view further implies it is used for flight reference (why else would you put it right in front of the pilot) further complicating how it's approved."

Could this be solved with a placard that advises not to pay any attention to the shiny expensive gizmo in plain sight?

If the rules were at all straight forward, it would be easier to determine what is allowed or not.
The FAA (and most all government agencies other than the CIA) take the approach that the rules are there to tell you what you CAN do. SO if there isn't a rule saying you can do it, you can't. The CIA is the exception where they interpret the rules as narrow as possible and act on the inverse (it doesn't say I can't do it THIS way, so I'm not breaking the rules).

Add on top decades of non regulatory advisories that are treated as regulation....

And you have a case where you can cherry pick verse from chapter to either justify or refute near anything you might want to do.

There is no guidance that says a placard can exempt you from regulation but it might appease your FSDO on a Tuesday depending on what he or she had for lunch but I wouldn't try it on a Thursday. On Thursday they might still ask if it's not a primary flight instrument why is it in the pilot's primary field of view?

I'm pretty late to the G5 discussion but as someone trying to lose a few pounds it seems pretty darn compelling.

How many gauges can it replace? Definitely the vacuum intstruments but why not the Airspeed indicator and Altimeter?

A bit of research shows the Airspeed Indicator and Altimeter run off the existing pitot static system, so if a guy buys the certified version why couldn't he get rid of 4 instruments and only keep the VSI and Turn Coordinator?

Bagarre wrote:

Skeletool wrote:Thanks all for your help on this. It is a bit frustrating that all the FSDO's aren't on the same page. From my point a view, it is either legal or it's not. If the FSDO can't specifically point to where the law says it is not legal, then it is got to be legal.


Bagarre

"Putting it in the pilot's primary view further implies it is used for flight reference (why else would you put it right in front of the pilot) further complicating how it's approved."

Could this be solved with a placard that advises not to pay any attention to the shiny expensive gizmo in plain sight?

If the rules were at all straight forward, it would be easier to determine what is allowed or not.
The FAA (and most all government agencies other than the CIA) take the approach that the rules are there to tell you what you CAN do. SO if there isn't a rule saying you can do it, you can't. The CIA is the exception where they interpret the rules as narrow as possible and act on the inverse (it doesn't say I can't do it THIS way, so I'm not breaking the rules).

Add on top decades of non regulatory advisories that are treated as regulation....

And you have a case where you can cherry pick verse from chapter to either justify or refute near anything you might want to do.

There is no guidance that says a placard can exempt you from regulation but it might appease your FSDO on a Tuesday depending on what he or she had for lunch but I wouldn't try it on a Thursday. On Thursday they might still ask if it's not a primary flight instrument why is it in the pilot's primary field of view?

Guess it depends on who you're dealing with at the FSDO. In my conversations with them the attitude has been "anything not specifically disallowed by the regs is allowed by default." In fact, I've been told that verbatim numerous times by the FSDO.

albravo wrote:I'm pretty late to the G5 discussion but as someone trying to lose a few pounds it seems pretty darn compelling.

How many gauges can it replace? Definitely the vacuum intstruments but why not the Airspeed indicator and Altimeter?

A bit of research shows the Airspeed Indicator and Altimeter run off the existing pitot static system, so if a guy buys the certified version why couldn't he get rid of 4 instruments and only keep the VSI and Turn Coordinator?

Allan, one G5 only replaces one guage. Either the artificial horizon or DG. You can double stack them to replace both if those guages. And they say you can replace a turn coordinator with one as well, but it show on the AH so I wouldn't even bother. I dont think our little planes require a turn coordinator for VFR anyways. It does show airspeed and altitude as well, and ties in to the pitot static system. So why they can be used to replace the steams gauges there is a mystery to me. In reality, one G5 can do more then a steam 6 pack can, and lays it out in a fairly good manner. It's probably a bit crowded, but 2 of them stacked up would be more then good for 99% of us VFT guys.

Depends on your perspective. I see you are in Canada, so perhaps don't have the same phobia's of career-ending lawsuits that they do down south. Then ask yourself what you would do in the absence of any regulation. Is the G5 reliable? How long will it continue to run after an alternator failure? The back-up battery is an FAA mandated response that is as arbitrary as any other decision they make regarding 21st century instruments that they don't fully understand. Why do you want to keep the VSI and the Turn Coordinator? Both are features on the G5 that work perfectly on mine. Even better than perfectly, they have additional information to both those analog instruments that is on par with modern AHRS EFIS systems.

In the end it is up to you and your IA. Personally I don't think the regulators would give a rat's ass about a 60 year old airframe with 80 year old instruments flown VFR, but then you're not in a country with million dollar lawsuits over the temperature of a coffee.

Now I had to keep my old analog Airspeed and Altimeter because my IA said to, as it was part of the original type certificate that had not yet been updated by ACA. Consider it a compromise. As MTV put it a few posts back "or you could just do it".

There is no VSI or Turn Coordinator required for Day VFR. CARS 601.14. CARS 601.15 and .16 go further into night an VFR On Top, but it is old school stuff, long eclipsed by technology.

Here's an excerpt from your CARS with regards to aircraft instruments required for an aircraft used for an Instrument Rating flight test in Canada:
e) be equipped in accordance with CAR Standard 425.23 - Training Aircraft Requirements, subsections (1), (2) and (7) of the Personnel Licensing Standards with the exception that aeroplanes equipped with an electronic primary flight display are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs 425.23(1)(b) requiring a separate turn and slip or turn coordinator indicator;

And good luck, at some point you will lose confidence that the regulations are protecting you and enhancing your safety by restricting installations, and then you will have a hard decision to make.

Thanks David.

Karmutzen, in the absence of regulation I would ditch the steam gauges in a heartbeat. I'm a day VFR guy and fill my cup more than adequately with that type of flying. I rarely, if ever, look at the DG or AI. I look at the turn coordinator fairly often because since the amphibs went on she tends to yaw (one water rudder is bent). I look at airspeed often, altitude slightly less often and VSI when I'm curious about my climb rate or trying to trim.

I'll see what my mechanic is comfortable signing off on.

Allan