Garmin 695 Approval

[Keepitup]

Does anyone know if the Garmin 695 has been approved by EASA for installation?, been looking on the net and can't find any information about approval.

[S-Works]

its a portable GPS.......

[IO540]

Does anyone know if the Garmin 695 has been approved by EASA for installation?, been looking on the net and can't find any information about approval.

It's not a certified item (TSO or PMA in FAA-speak) so cannot be permanently mounted in an aircraft with an ICAO Certificate of Airworthiness.

In principle it could be done (certified avionics are not really built any differently) if you obtained an approval for it but it is highly unlikely that Garmin would co-operate with the delivery of suitable Approved Data to help you with the application. Even if they did, you would be looking at hundreds of hours of DER time, at say $200/hr. Or the equivalent EASA process.

Just mount it "temporarily". It is possible to get the power /antenna connections done properly and signed off. The GPS itself needs to be removable.

[SkyHawk-N]

To install a 695 you would need to use a panel dock, like the one available from AirGizmos (http://www.airgizmos.com/prod/pd13/index.asp). So it wouldn't be Garmin who need to supply the approved data or apply for approval, it would be the manufacturer of the panel dock. It may be worth contacting AirGizmos to see what they say.

[IO540]

I wouldn't bank on that line of reasoning, since the item which will end up in the docking station will be ................... a Garmin 695 ;)

[SkyHawk-N]

...but it would be the dock that is hard-wired and installed into the panel, not the 695 which may or may not be housed in it at any time.

[S-Works]

the air gizmos dock is not wired to anything. All it does is sit the GPS in it. The antenna is just a cable that sits there and so is the power in the same was as you would supply and antenna to a yoke mount.

Which takes me back to my original comment. Its a PORTABLE GPS.

[wigglyamp]

There are EASA-permitted means to 'Fix' a portable GPS in a certified aircraft, but with many caveats. Any permanent mount fitted in the aircraft must be approved either by a Part 21J DOA or by an EASA minor change. Same for any power supply or antrenna. The mount bracket must meet the relevant flammability requirements if not metal. The portable unit must be mountable and de-mountable without the pilot using ANY tools. Only units that are genuinely portable may be used - i.e - if removed from the aircraft, they should still be capable of being used without otrher external devices, power supplies etc being required (other than perhaps plugging ion a portable antenna). The unit must not be mounted in the primary field of view or in the main radio stack where it will be a natural centre of attention (so on the right panel would be OK on a C182, PA32 etc). Changes to radio stack or primary panel layout to acomodate portable units must be subject to individual approval by EASA.
PM me if you want any help with certifying this type of arrangement.

[SkyHawk-N]

the air gizmos dock is not wired to anything. All it does is sit the GPS in it. The antenna is just a cable that sits there and so is the power in the same was as you would supply and antenna to a yoke mount.

Which takes me back to my original comment. Its a PORTABLE GPS.

I used the AirGizmos dock as an example, I was making the point that it is the dock that is installed on the aircraft and not the GPS and therefore it was the manufacturer of the dock that needs to come up with data in any approval process. The Bendix King Skymap is also a PORTABLE GPS but there is a fully plumbed in dock, manufactured by Bendix King, for it that is STC'd.

[Keepitup]

Hi All,

Thanks for the response, I know the unit is portable !!! but was seeing if anyone had hardwired the unit into an aircraft/helicopter and obtained an EASA Approval, looking on the net, there r some that have been installed in the radio rack, not EASA.

Will tell customer to strap it to his leg, will be much cheaper than an EASA Mod and less hassle.;)

Best Regards

Keepitup

[SkyHawk-N]

I use the yoke mount that comes with the 696, in my 172 it works just fine.

[Pilot DAR]

Though such an installation would seem to be logical and straight forward, the issues which wigglyamp raises are quite valid. You may find answers to your questions in this advisory circular.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2020-138B.pdf

Though the 695 is one of the simple GPS's, and it would seem easy to just bolt it into the plane, once you do that, you are affecting the entire plane, and it is that affect which must be evaluated. So approving a dock, or some wires is only a part of that. If you want to argue that the dock will never have a GPS installed, well, try that, but you'll probably end up with a placard probiting the installation of anything in the dock! I did test fly a C 185 amphibian last November which had a 695. It stopped working just off the water - I never did find out why.

There are other things being considered during the approval evalutaion. Various visibilities are one thing. Does the unit produce glare, which obstructs visibility? I test flew an EC 120 helicopter for the evaluation of a FLIR display. During the day, it was a delight. I flew again at night. The glare from the unit reflected off about 80% of the inside of the windshield on my side, and spotting traffic from that range of vision would have been very unlikely. Some experimentation in flight with a cardboard hood (I take black cardboard, scissors, and black masking tape on such flights, when I have a helper). Ultimately it was fine.

Though it is likely that the istallation would be very design compliant in most GA aircraft, we still have owners and pilots whining about poor installations, and the regulator trying to prevent them. If all installers were completely conversant with all of the requirements for design compliance, approvals would just be a second thought, but as long as EMI could interfere which the glideslope indication, or power wires in behind could snag in the flight controls, there will always be a requirement for a demonstration of design compliance (approval) for certified aircraft - it keeps the aircraft certified!

[IO540]

I think Pilot DAR is right.

I am not aware of anybody having got approval for a dedicated GPS mount, sunk into the panel.

Plenty of people have got approvals (well, a Minor Mod logbook signature :) ) for power/antenna wiring, terminating on a connector, "obviously" for use with a GPS.

Wigglyamp's EASA requirement of "The unit must not be mounted in the primary field of view or in the main radio stack where it will be a natural centre of attention" finishes it off pretty well... hardly any point in doing it.

Unfortunately many GPS mounts are really agricultural and IMHO unsafe - those which screw onto the yoke tube especially. My Garmin 496 came with one of those. Never used it.

[SkyHawk-N]

I think Pilot DAR is right.

I am not aware of anybody having got approval for a dedicated GPS mount, sunk into the panel.

So my Skymap IIIC that is mounted, sunk into my Cessna panel and my approved 337 with STC is just a figment of my imagination?

Here is my 696 on the yoke, it works well for me here. In the background is the panel mounted Skymap.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r203/Skyhawk-N/Image21.jpg

[Big Pistons Forever]

[QUOTE] So my Skymap IIIC that is mounted, sunk into my Cessna panel and my approved 337 with STC is just a figment of my imagination?



Ahh..... the mighty form 337, the "secret handshake" that only Americans are allowed to use:p

[SkyHawk-N]

Ahh..... the mighty form 337, the "secret handshake" that only Americans are allowed to use :p

Damn that border huh? :E

Just found another GPS (Skymap) sunk into the panel, this time an Irish PA-28...

http://www.planecheck.com/images/13727/img039188901603.jpg

[IO540]

So... which FSDO you send the 337 form to?

Was it the NY IFU, or was it one of the other FSDOs?

Or did you mail it direct to Oklahoma?

[Pilot DAR]

Yes, the FAA 337 seems to have some approval "magic" in th e U.S., which by passes the "normal" approval system, recognized in the rest of the world. I believe that 337 approvals might not have been subjected to a review for compliance with the applicable design standards, by a person authorized under the aircraft certification discipline. I'm not saying it does not work, but is is not well liked by Transport Canada!

I issue STC's, and in Canada, that is the only approval recognized for a major modification.

[SkyHawk-N]

So... which FSDO you send the 337 form to?

Was it the NY IFU, or was it one of the other FSDOs?

Or did you mail it direct to Oklahoma?

I didn't do anything, the large, reputable avionics company in Indianapolis did that for me. The paperwork is in the US, if it wasn't I'd get a copy posted up here.

[IO540]

I believe that 337 approvals might not have been subjected to a review for compliance with the applicable design standards, by a person authorized under the aircraft certification disciplineI have just been researching this fairly extensively for a project.

There is nothing wrong with the 337 Field Approval process. The result is "FAA approved" - provided you follow the rules.

The basic Minor v. Major alteration decisionmaking guide is here (http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v04%20ac%20equip%20&%20auth/chapter%2009/04_009_001.pdf) and there is even a flow chart in there. There are some other documents which may be applicable e.g. AC43-210 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/31bed1c77a32c64886256e43006da997/$FILE/AC43-210.pdf).

Assuming a Major alteration:

What happens is that you draw up a 337, include with it suitable Approved Data, and this goes to an FSDO, which sends it back to you, you then install the job, an IA checks it for conformity with the 337 etc, and sends the finished thing to the FAA in Oklahoma for filing.

This way, it has been "by definition" FAA approved. Some other country may not like what the FAA accepts as Approved Data but to my reading they are pretty picky.

However, it is possible to send the 337 direct to Oklahoma, where it doesn't get looked at (just gets filed). The aircraft owner (who foolishly rarely if ever gets to see this paperwork, and even if the avionics shop gave it to him he wouldn't read it) will think it was done properly, but actually the FAA never saw it. This is legal if the mod was done IAW all the regs, with gold plated approved data (e.g. produced by a DER who issues an 8110-3) but you never know....... ;) The FSDO "Approved Data quality assurance process" was skipped in this case.

However, IMHO, the above is not much different to doing a mod totally off the books, which can happen and does happen everywhere (including gold plated EASA-land, where the incentive to do mods off the books has never been greater).

What I have sympathy for are EASA objections to the AML STC system, which is a basically meaningless perversion of ICAO certification. A GNS430W can be installed in a huge range of planes, whose avionics can be vastly different. One could say it doesn't matter, on the basis that a GNS430W cannot do any harm (unless it catches fire) and I dare say the FAA would never grant an AML STC on e.g. an engine.

But then the whole system is perverted because Approved Data can mean so many different things. A starter motor can come with an STC (the highest form of approved data) for a specific engine and be installable on any such engine, but one of those engines could be in an airframe whose starter relay cannot carry the current. Skytec had a lot of fun with this....

If you take this to its obvious conclusion, you will have the certification agency assuming that installers are just wiremen with no systems understanding (which is sadly true in many cases, with the USA being no exception) and that the agency needs to ensure the installer gets component- and airframe- specific wiring diagrams for every job. That would be "proper" but would be a fantastic job creation scheme for DERs and EASA 21 companies, at 4-5 digits for just about every job. I don't think that's a good idea, either :)

There is another way to get a substandard FAA approval and that is if the FSDO officer cannot read. Nowadays, adult literacy is a major issue which requires competent staff recruitment. But I don't think other countries are immune from this.

I issue STC's, and in Canada, that is the only approval recognized for a major modificationThe Q is whether the Approved Data required for an STC is any different to what is required for a field approval. I don't think the difference is significant - unless somebody has shortcut the process as I describe above.

I didn't do anything, the large, reputable avionics company in Indianapolis did that for me.It would be interesting to see what approved data they submitted to the FSDO.

[SkyHawk-N]

The aircraft owner (who foolishly rarely if ever gets to see this paperwork, and even if the avionics shop gave it to him he wouldn't read it) will think it was done properly, but actually the FAA never saw it.

The installation will also be logged in the aircraft log and every aeroplane owner I know religiously read their log books and check the paperwork after work has been carried out, after all they pay good money to have it done properly.

There is another way to get a substandard FAA approval and that is if the FSDO officer cannot read. Nowadays, adult literacy is a major issue which requires competent staff recruitment. But I don't think other countries are immune from this.

Are you serious? :hmm:

[IO540]

Since I believe you trained to be an A&P, I am sure you read your stuff :)

[wigglyamp]

Comparing an installed Skymap 111C to an installed GPS695 is really not a fair comparison. Whilst the Skymap started as a portable unit, it was eventually EASA ETSO'd so is an approved product. The GPS695 has no such approval. Incidentally, the Skymap 111C has just been discontinued.

[SkyHawk-N]

We weren't compating the two. If you follow through the thread you will see IO540 saying....

I am not aware of anybody having got approval for a dedicated GPS mount, sunk into the panel.

..and that is why I brought up the Skymap.

Hopefully it will only be a matter of time until the 695/696 also gets approval.

[S-Works]

Which brings us nicely back to my comment right at the start. The 695/6 is a portable unit........

[SkyHawk-N]

..... which can be panel mounted in, for example, a 1980 Cessna P210 Centurian.

So it is possible in FAA land.

http://www.aspenavionics.com/images/customer_gallery_lg/n7825k_010_whittle.jpg

[S-Works]

Does anyone know if the Garmin 695 has been approved by EASA for installation?, been looking on the net and can't find any information about approval.

The OP asked about fitting it to an EASA aircraft. It is a portable GPS. He can't do it. Simple.

Why not move onto convincing him to putting it on the N reg to support your argument....? Or a permit aircraft.

But for an EASA CofA there is no path to the permanent panel fitting of a portable GPS at this time.

[IO540]

I assume Skyhawk's job was on a plane which lives in the USA, so it was done as a 337 put through a local FSDO, correct?

Over here, the 337 route is a little more involved... the NY IFU has an apparent monopoly on FSDO field approvals for Europe (etc) but despite being paid by the US taxpayer to do it, they don't do it anymore on avionics (I asked them).

There are at least two other ways but not exactly straightforward.

I certainly wouldn't put a plane on the N-reg just to mount a handheld GPS :)

[wigglyamp]

As I said in an earlier post, there IS a route to mount a 695 in an EU certified aircraft, provided you follow some specific EASA guidlines - I have the wriiten consent from them!