What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

GPS and IFR

RV8R999

Well Known Member
Im sure this will be a really fun topic - So I'm doing some research and find a thread (diff forum) about what it takes to make an experimental legal to fly IFR. Well the good folks at the EAA published a document more or less addressing the issue. However in their document was this little interesting paragraph -

"It is important to note that the GPS is approved for ?supplemental? navigation only. A primary
system based on ground facilities must be installed in the aircraft as well. This requirement is
found in Part 91.205(d), by way of the following statement:

?Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
facilities to be used.?

As we are required by our OpLims to equip the aircraft in accordance with 91.205, this statement
tells us that our primary navigational equipment must be based on ground facilities (primarily
VOR). As this is the case, a homebuilt with only a GPS installed would not be legal for IFR
operations. "

Does anyone believe this? How can anyone ever shoot a GPS approach to an airfield without a VOR? I didn't see a date on the EAA document so am assuming it is 10 years old at least.

If the FAR stated "OMINI direction navigation equipment is required...blah, blah, blah" then I would get it. BUt the statement was "Navigation equipment appropriate for the ground facilities to be used". To me this means if I'm filing IFR to an airfield with only a VOR approach then I need to have a VOR installed. If it has both a VOR and GPS then I could have either as they are both "appropriate".

I'm no lawyer but this seems easy to me....

I was planning on doing away with the old ground based navigation equipment and go entirely with GPS... still am actually.

Any opinions here?

Ken
 
Im sure this will be a really fun topic - So I'm doing some research and find a thread (diff forum) about what it takes to make an experimental legal to fly IFR. Well the good folks at the EAA published a document more or less addressing the issue. However in their document was this little interesting paragraph -

"It is important to note that the GPS is approved for “supplemental” navigation only. A primary
system based on ground facilities must be installed in the aircraft as well. This requirement is
found in Part 91.205(d), by way of the following statement:

“Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
facilities to be used.”

As we are required by our OpLims to equip the aircraft in accordance with 91.205, this statement
tells us that our primary navigational equipment must be based on ground facilities (primarily
VOR). As this is the case, a homebuilt with only a GPS installed would not be legal for IFR
operations. "

Does anyone believe this? How can anyone ever shoot a GPS approach to an airfield without a VOR? I didn't see a date on the EAA document so am assuming it is 10 years old at least.

If the FAR stated "OMINI direction navigation equipment is required...blah, blah, blah" then I would get it. BUt the statement was "Navigation equipment appropriate for the ground facilities to be used". To me this means if I'm filing IFR to an airfield with only a VOR approach then I need to have a VOR installed. If it has both a VOR and GPS then I could have either as they are both "appropriate".

I'm no lawyer but this seems easy to me....

I was planning on doing away with the old ground based navigation equipment and go entirely with GPS... still am actually.

Any opinions here?

Ken

Check the latest version of 91.205. It will read thus:

(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.
 
How Many Angels.....

This gets debated every so often on various aviation forums, and the question has nothing to do with Experimentals per se....it is germain to all aircraft - is GPS only adequate for IFR use?

I think part of the problem is that the FAR that states "....appropriate to the ground stations to be used..." was written before GPS existed. Quite frankly, I believe that it is an obsolete statement, appropriate to it's time, but never modified to meet current usage standards. (This was be akin to a rule written before the age of jets that assumed that ever aircraft had a propellor....)

I personally have yet to equip a plane with GPS only for IFR use - I definitely want to have an ILS (for now) and that means I automatically have a VOR receiver as well. So I don't have a dog in the fight. But as WAAS approaches become more prevalent, will people opt to forgo the ILS? I expect so - and at that time, the FAA is going to ave to deal with the issue.

Until that time, the fact is that people use lots of different stuff, and the FAA doesn't ramp check you to see what you have. It would only be an issue if you called attention to your operation via some sort of incident...

Paul

(Just today, Houston Approach wanted us to proceed direct to some fix that can pretty much only be found with a GPS - despite the fact that we were filed as "/U". Our remarks section said we had a VFR GPS, but I am still enough of a believer in the rules to say "sorry, can't do it!")
 
Not having looked up the FAR's recently, I believe that a "IFR" certification as it pertains to an airplane, really is just a 2 year Pitot/Static/Transponder check.

GPS's can be limited to VFR because they don't have updated databases and other functions and monitoring suitable for IFR. However they CAN be used in IMC and on an IFR flight plan. As long as you have another primary means of navigating. You must, of course, have all the VFR and IFR equipment listed in 91.205.

I don't believe there is ANY requirement to be able to do ANY type of instrument approach. However, you would have to have such equipment if you actually fly one. Still you can file an IFR flight plan with IMC enroute and VFR at the terminal, use a "visual approach" and be legal. You would have to indicate VISUAL APPROACH ONLY in your comments of your flight plan.

I haven't seen anything that limits an aircraft because that aircraft is experimental.

When IFR flight planning, you have to choose really three methods of navigation enroute
1. Direct - GPS (enroute IFR)
2. Airway - GPS (IFR) or VOR
3. Vectors - Heading indicator

Once you transition to the terminal part of your plan, you have to have the required nav equipment to fly the approach you want to use. Or NONE if you fly a visual.

As far as "ground based" is concerned. GPS with WAAS and RAIM is every bit as "ground based" as is a VOR.

I am planning on installing a SL30 for my Primary and use a "VFR" GPS to actually fly the route. Controllers are not idiots. They like GPS routes. I have asked on many occasions, using my vfr GPS indicated bearing, "Hey, can I fly a 330 heading direct to KABC" They respond, "Do you have a GPS?" I say YES. (though VFR) "Fly heading 330".

Anyhow, that's my opinion and I am sticking to it. So don't noone confuse me with any facts.
 
The phrase "Ground Based" is the important one

Ken:
You must have on board ground-based equipment (VOR and/or NDB) that will allow you to continue navigation on an instrument flight plan should your GPS fail. Additionally, while you can file to an airport that has only a GPS approach, you must list an alternate with a land based approach unless your destination meets the requirements for landing under VFR conditions. Also, you cannot list as an alternate an airport with only a GPS approach. Bottom line, best bet is to put in a VOR/ILS receiver such as a VAL INS 429 or a Narco Nav 122D. Both of these units give you a CDI capable of displaying GPS info, and the Val also incorporates marker beacons.
If you couple either of these units with a GNS430W and an SL40 along with just about any EFIS (Trutrak, AFS, Grand Rapids, Dynon), you'll have two ground based units, two comms, two CDIs, and one WAAS capable GPS. A pretty solid instrument panel.
Also, the GPS you refer to as "supplemental information" covers all of the hand held units as well as some panel mounts. These are approved under one TSO, while the IFR capable units are approved under another. These later units must be updatable within the appropriate cycle time (a log must be maintained) and also have RAIM. Someone may want to correct me here, as I'm operating with my FAR/AIM sitting in the hangar.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP
 
Oh, I should say that a manufacturer may deem an aircraft "Not Approved for IFR". If they do that you don't have a chance with the FAA if you get ramped.

Being experimental you decide if your aircraft is "IFR Approved" (Provided you have the 91.205 stuff).
 
Also, I had a Cherokee that was "IFR Approved". It had;

1 nav/com/gs (Clunker kx170b)
Marker beacon
A transponder.

That's it. (all the 91.205 items too)

I did my IFR check ride in it. That was a blast.
 
Ken:
You must have on board ground-based equipment (VOR and/or NDB) that will allow you to continue navigation on an instrument flight plan should your GPS fail. Additionally, while you can file to an airport that has only a GPS approach, you must list an alternate with a land based approach unless your destination meets the requirements for landing under VFR conditions. Also, you cannot list as an alternate an airport with only a GPS approach. Bottom line, best bet is to put in a VOR/ILS receiver such as a VAL INS 429 or a Narco Nav 122D. Both of these units give you a CDI capable of displaying GPS info, and the Val also incorporates marker beacons.
If you couple either of these units with a GNS430W and an SL40 along with just about any EFIS (Trutrak, AFS, Grand Rapids, Dynon), you'll have two ground based units, two comms, two CDIs, and one WAAS capable GPS. A pretty solid instrument panel.
Also, the GPS you refer to as "supplemental information" covers all of the hand held units as well as some panel mounts. These are approved under one TSO, while the IFR capable units are approved under another. These later units must be updatable within the appropriate cycle time (a log must be maintained) and also have RAIM. Someone may want to correct me here, as I'm operating with my FAR/AIM sitting in the hangar.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

As stated in an earlier post in this thread:

Check the latest version of 91.205. It will read thus:

"(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown."

The "ground-based" reference has been removed from the latest version of 91.205.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for keeping us up to date Sam - I had forgotten that the verbage had been updated!
 
it's possible you were legal and so was the controller

(Just today, Houston Approach wanted us to proceed direct to some fix that can pretty much only be found with a GPS - despite the fact that we were filed as "/U". Our remarks section said we had a VFR GPS, but I am still enough of a believer in the rules to say "sorry, can't do it!")


Although I can not seem to find it tonight, I believe I have read that a handheld/VFR GPS may be used IFR enroute WHEN under radar contact and positive two-way communication. Related, an IFR GPS may be used with an expired database IF the latitude/longitude of the waypoints used in the flight by that receiver can be verified accurate. (A daunting task while airborne!)
 
yes the new verbiage makes much more sense. THANKS!

Terry- not sure where you find in the regs that a VOR is REQUIRED, stress the word REQUIRED, in case the GPS fails? This would indicate that a GPS would then be REQUIRED if the VOR fails.

As far as meeting the criteria for alternates...I don't think this has anything at all to do with REQUIRED equipment to legally fly IFR but rather when you can legally file on any given day given the weather and approaches available at your destination.

certainly limiting my installation to GPS only narrows my options, but in all honesty on those days when I'd need an ILS i probably would choose not to fly anyway... I get enough crappy weather flying during my day job.

Thanks for all the feedback. It is always interesting when discussing the FARs just how many varied opinions exist. Shoot even the FEDS can't all agree!

Regards,
Ken
 
GPS only IFR

"(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown."

The "ground-based" reference has been removed from the latest version of 91.20

Sam:
The update of the FAR was also followed by an update of AC90-94 to AC90-105 in early 2009. My take is the same as yours: Yes, technically you can fly IFR with an IFR GPS only. However, IIRC, RAIM must be checked and established before departure and if lost during the flight, an alternative means of navigating must be in place to allow continuation under IFR. I'll need my books to check on the filing of alternates.
Terry
 
GPS changes

What I thought I knew about IFR certified GPS:
- You can use your GPS for all navigation under IFR with one exception around *filing* for the alternate.
- If the alternate meets the 1-2-3 rule, you're good.
- Otherwise, there must be an approach at that airport that you have the equipment to get to without relying on GPS.
- The above is my interpretation from AIM. None of this is FAR.

Now I can't find anything about the "alternate" limitation? A question for FSDO, AOPA, or of course VAF. I need to Tivo this chapter in the AIM. Tough to keep up with.

Interesting one: My airport, KLZU, has an "ADF Required" on every approach plate because that's the MAP. So if you don't have an ADF on board, you shouldn't file LZU ever as an alternate because you would be relying on GPS to find the MAP at the alternate. If you had ILS/VOR navigation, you can file and fly the ILS appch to LZU as primary destination, but not as alternate. I've had trips back home where this stuff did come into play when you were filing.
 
FAR Requirements

Don:
Your post brings up an interesting point. The FARs are an attempt to cover the basics. To really get to the details, you need to look at both the AIM and the applicable Advisory Circulars. As stated earlier, yes you can navigate enroute solely by GPS (according to FAR). However, it isn't "street legal" GPS if you don't have RAIM continuity. It would appear that at present time, the FAA considers loss of RAIM to be equivalent to loss of onboard VOR capability. Perhaps in the future, it will be treated more like a ground-based VOR transmitter going off line.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP
 
Navy Test Pilot

Ken:
Just to be clear, VOR and/or NDB equipment are not required to cover loss of GPS (check the AC for RAIM requirements). However, if you plan to continue under IFR, you need some other form of navigation. In my own case, I currently fly with a single VOR and back this up with a Garmin 396. Loss of my VOR enroute would require me to remain VFR and if in IMC, certainly declare loss of capability and most likely an emergency. BTW, I notice you're based in JAX. Daughter #1, Lt. Leah Kohler, is the Flight Surgeon for VP45, now at Kadena. Nephew, Erich Kohler, (E6, I believe) is an electronic tech also based at JAX. Any chance you can get me clearance to land my RV on base in the future? So far, neither one of them has been able to come thru.
Regards,
Terry
 
What I thought I knew about IFR certified GPS:
- You can use your GPS for all navigation under IFR with one exception around *filing* for the alternate.
- If the alternate meets the 1-2-3 rule, you're good.
- Otherwise, there must be an approach at that airport that you have the equipment to get to without relying on GPS.
- The above is my interpretation from AIM. None of this is FAR.

Now I can't find anything about the "alternate" limitation? A question for FSDO, AOPA, or of course VAF.

I'm currently installing the external GPS antennas on my airplane, so this sort of thing has been on my mind lately. There is something related to this in the GNS 430W install manual:

7.1.1 TSO-C146a GPS/WAAS Limitations

[...snip...]

1) Aircraft using the GPS or WAAS capability of the 400W Series navigation equipment under IFR must be equipped with an approved and operational alternate means of navigation appropriate to the flight, with the exception of oceanic and remote operations.

2) For flight planning purposes, if an alternate airport is required, it must have an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS or RNAV that is anticipated to be operational and available at the estimated time of arrival. All equipment required for this procedure must be installed and operational.

This is from the version of the install manual I have at home, which is Rev E, dated March 2008. I checked the most up to date version we have at work (Rev G, December 2008) and it has the same text.

cheers,
mcb
 
Last edited:
Not sure of the compulsory nature of the AIM or AC?? IMHO those are in fact "advisory" in nature. Maybe good practice to follow them, and I do (mostly).
Unless the FAR specifies a particular AC must be followed I think you can LEGALLY ignore them? Am I wrong????



break break

Terry - unless you are active duty, retired military, or on contract with the Dept Of the Navy, there is no way I know of to get you a government site license to land at NAS Jax. You might try contacting the Navy flying club, they might be able to host you...dunno :)
 
As far as I can remember from my research while building my RV-6, there are two different TSO requirements for IFR certified GPS's. One deals with enroute navigation and the other with approach certification. At that time there were several GPS recievers that met the enroute TSO. The approach TSO was new, wasn't adequate as a sole means of navigation in the approach phase, and there was only one company that met both enroute and approach TSO's. You were required to have a VHF transiever to file a flight plan that would include an IFR approach. This was pre-WAAS. I agree with Sam that you no longer are required to have both. Almost all VOR and ADF approaches now have GPS overlays, so you almost never need to shoot a raw data VOR approach if you have a properly certified GPS. If your cockpit is equiped and you are qualified for WAAS GPS approaches, you can do VGP approaches that will bring you down to near ILS CATI minimums.
As far as using a handheld or non-IFR certified GPS for IFR navigation, you can do that if in radar contact and communicating with ATC on a clearance. This is what they told us at a GPS clinic I went to here in Cincinnati, put on by AOPA. However, if they loose radar contact with you, you have to be able to navigate by IFR approved means. You could just put a cheap VOR in your plane and use your 496 for virtually all of your navigation in most parts of the country. I've wired my VFR RV-8 with a coax going back to the tail, with a doubler riveted in place, tiny hole in the middle to drill for a VOR antenna in case I want to make it IFR. My 496 has approaches in it, I can make it WAAS, and update it as often as I wish.

Scott
RV-8 FB
 
I'm currently installing the external GPS antennas on my airplane, so this sort of thing has been on my mind lately. There is something related to this in the GNS 430W install manual:



This is from the version of the install manual I have at home, which is Rev E, dated March 2008. I checked the most up to date version we have at work (Rev G, December 2008) and it has the same text.

cheers,
mcb
Yeah, that's the text that I was familiar with. It's pretty clear that the advisories around GPS are changing all the time as the technology has gone from cool to accepted to secondary to primary. There were even some AC's which said WAAS certified GPS didn't have the same alternate limitations as non-WAAS GPS, but now I'm wondering if all the advisories that stated this "alternate in lieu of" stuff about any IFR-GPS have been obsoleted or cancelled. Doing web searches on the FAA site only left me wondering if I just hadn't looked hard enough to find the latest or correct AC. Dunno.
 
Found info to share

In my search on this subject, I found this Powerpoint presentation that shares interesting information about WAAS GPS and the alternate airport requirements (Page 16). Does anyone know where this is specified in the FAR/AIM? It appears that this was written in 2007 or earlier.
 
Last edited:
As far as using a handheld or non-IFR certified GPS for IFR navigation, you can do that if in radar contact and communicating with ATC on a clearance. This is what they told us at a GPS clinic I went to here in Cincinnati, put on by AOPA. However, if they loose radar contact with you, you have to be able to navigate by IFR approved means. You could just put a cheap VOR in your plane and use your 496 for virtually all of your navigation in most parts of the country. I've wired my VFR RV-8 with a coax going back to the tail, with a doubler riveted in place, tiny hole in the middle to drill for a VOR antenna in case I want to make it IFR. My 496 has approaches in it, I can make it WAAS, and update it as often as I wish.

So you're planning on using your 496 as an IFR GPS? Approaches, WAAS and updates aside, how can you use a portable GPS as an IFR tool? So if you're in radio and radar contact with ATC you can use a portable for approaches? I'm not sure I buy that just yet, I thought you had to have alerter lights and in some cases a CDI, stuff like that. I don't know all the requirements for an IFR GPS, but it seems that a portable doesn't meet any of 'em... or am I completely wrong?
 
Am I reading this right?

Check the latest version of 91.205. It will read thus:

(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.

Sam and Paul

While laying out my panel, I was looking through some old threads about GPS and VOR installations and requirements. It looks like the " equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used" part of the 91.205 has been put back into the FARs :confused: If you look at the historical CFR section, they took out the "ground facilities to be used" part. Now it's back in ?????

As far as I understand it right now (March 2010), you have to have a ground based receiver, i.e. VOR/ILS. It looks like they updated it on 10/20/2009.

Thoughts....
 
Does not matter if that was put back in or not. Interpret the reg to mean that if you are using ground navigation facilities that you need to have the appropriate equipment to utilize them.

A certified panel mount GPS can absolutely be used as sole source navigation and approaches if so certified but if you are for example navigating by GPS and do an ILS approach, the GPS/Nav navigator switches automatically (at least in the 4/530's and 480) from GPS navigation to LOC & GS ground based signals once it locks onto the localizer. You cannot do a VOR, ILS, or Localizer approach using GPS except as a substitute for DME. For advisory and situational awareness it is a good idea to have it though.
 
The RAIM function is the key...

Does not matter if that was put back in or not. Interpret the reg to mean that if you are using ground navigation facilities that you need to have the appropriate equipment to utilize them.

A certified panel mount GPS can absolutely be used as sole source navigation and approaches if so certified but if you are for example navigating by GPS and do an ILS approach, the GPS/Nav navigator switches automatically (at least in the 4/530's and 480) from GPS navigation to LOC & GS ground based signals once it locks onto the localizer. You cannot do a VOR, ILS, or Localizer approach using GPS except as a substitute for DME. For advisory and situational awareness it is a good idea to have it though.

...and you need to ensure your altitude encoder is working up to snuff...

From the TSO (which makes your panel mount certified as mentioned above)

(xv) RAIM Implementation. Any algorithm which verifies the integrity of the position output using GPS measurements and barometric aiding is considered a RAIM algorithm. An algorithm which uses additional information (e.g., multi-sensor system) to verify the integrity of the position output may be acceptable as a RAIM-equivalent.

In the 430, this is done also with the integral VOR (multi-sensor) I believe.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...0cd9c6acf8ba186256dc700717e0f/$FILE/C129a.pdf
 
In regards to the phrase being in out, or put back in....this IS the government dealing with documents on computer - I wouldn't say the chances are zero that someone updated the wrong version.....

If I wanted to know if the phrase was in or out, I'd have to talk to the FAA to find out if they have a recent memo.

Paul
 
Canadian Regs for info

For any Canucks that may be reading this thread the Canadian reg is CAR 605.18 which says:

"(j) sufficient radio navigation equipment to permit the pilot, in the event of the failure at any stage of the flight of any item of that equipment, including any associated flight instrument display,

(i) to proceed to the destination aerodrome or proceed to another aerodrome that is suitable for landing, and

(ii) where the aircraft is operated in IMC, to complete an instrument approach and, if necessary, conduct a missed approach procedure."​
 
From the TSO (which makes your panel mount certified as mentioned above)

(xv) RAIM Implementation. Any algorithm which verifies the integrity of the position output using GPS measurements and barometric aiding is considered a RAIM algorithm. An algorithm which uses additional information (e.g., multi-sensor system) to verify the integrity of the position output may be acceptable as a RAIM-equivalent.

In the 430, this is done also with the integral VOR (multi-sensor) I believe.
I think the RAIM algorithim in the 430 uses the baro altitude (provides as input from your encoder, transponder, or EFIS) to verify the GPS position solution. Not sure it actually uses a multi-sensor VOR, although it may. It would be easy to test (disconnect NAV antenna and try a practice LPV approach).

Cool discussion.
 
RAIM ?

I think the RAIM algorithim in the 430 uses the baro altitude (provides as input from your encoder, transponder, or EFIS) to verify the GPS position solution. Not sure it actually uses a multi-sensor VOR, although it may. It would be easy to test (disconnect NAV antenna and try a practice LPV approach).
Cool discussion.

I know my 182 with the Apollo GX50 uses the encoder serialized altitude for RAIM cross check. As I'm 15 hours in my IFR training with all this - A timely discussion!
The Apollo GX50 even without WAAS, is a very powerfull approach GPS. I have not yet mastered it in all it's capablities (DME arc assist and etc). But now it seams all I'm using is the Narco MK12D for VOR approach practice(the timed and VOR-A type) And the Lorance2000c is now covered up in the right seat- not to be used for a while!:eek:
Also the "useless avionics list" in the old 182:
King ADF: good for a flight timer and that's about it Not an NDB for 100 miles
Northstar Loran: Turned off all Loran signals a couple weeks ago...
Now in the RV there is a 300XL that also has serial Altitude via the EFIS.
But no ground based equipment and also no anounciator: so it's strictly a VFR ship at the moment. But maybe someday...:rolleyes: the start if an IFR ship for getting on top or something...??
 
I myself have been doing a lot of reading(changing my panel for IFR) and found that the need for the marker lights are rarely mentioned. I found the only way to get this is through an audio panel like the pma8000b or the GMA347. You can have all the other things you think will make the IFR panel but what are you going to use for the marker lights. After all you will be using them for your decision for the abort at least.
 
Marker beacons?

You can have all the other things you think will make the IFR panel but what are you going to use for the marker lights. After all you will be using them for your decision for the abort at least.

I was told- Approach Marker beacons are also in the phase-out and remove direction... But not as fast as the NDB's have been going.
FWIW.
 
I myself have been doing a lot of reading(changing my panel for IFR) and found that the need for the marker lights are rarely mentioned. I found the only way to get this is through an audio panel like the pma8000b or the GMA347. You can have all the other things you think will make the IFR panel but what are you going to use for the marker lights. After all you will be using them for your decision for the abort at least.

Marker is no longer needed. You usually see them on an ILS approach which has its missed approach point identified by a decision height, not a marker (usually). They're being removed at a pretty rapid pace. You often see a notam something like "OM out of service indefinitely", or "decommissioned".
 
so you are saying we don't need to invest in marker beacons? I still need to do the training, am I going to need to have these? I am planing on a 430w.
 
That's it...

I would think the 430w and a SL30 it the perfect combo of GPS/NAV/COM and backup NAV/COM
The GPS will tell you of the MAP point both on a WAAS, GPS or ILS approach- no Marker beacon needed.
 
Last edited:
if I go the 430w I don't want to do the sl30. I guess what I'll need to do is talk to the fella that does the check rides and make sure my setup will work for the IFR check ride.
 
yea,

I just had the same conversation with my instructor-
What may happen with me is that I fly a Sim on the ground for an ILS approach since no close airport has one out of Lake Havasu.
Also possible to expect my check-out to fail the GPS(?) and do a timed approach with the VOR or something like that. That would be the only operable Nav unit left for me. But a 430w will do it all and show you where in the approach you are at- Half the battle will be getting real familier with that 430w. FWIW
 
I suppose I will just have to use my neighbor for the CFII, he has a 210 with a 530W and does IFR with it all the time. If anybody can get me into the 430W it would be him. My biggest thinking is I want to go into the new and not back into the old. In other words nex gen is WAAS, so I've been told. Correct me if I'm wrong. All the other stuff is fazing out, so in with the new and learn the new and leave the old behind is my thinking. I also have the D180 and I'll be linking the TRutrak digiflightII and the D180 to the 430W as well.
 
Last edited:
I am undoubtedly the lease experience of all of you in IFR since I just did my check ride only a week ago, but that also means that I probably remember the most of the regulations. Based on what I have learned lately, I must agree with Terry as the most complete of all, though many others have got it right as well.

Slyfox,
If I were you, I would go with a 430 and SL30 together. The reason is if your 430 decide to take a dump, you have no other viable option where is with SL30, you can absolutely do much. When I was building mine, I wasn't sure about IFR and didn't know how important VOR is for IFR so but now I wish I had installed a SL30 in place of my SL40.
 
Yes and no.....

....since the very first sentence says that it applies to "STANDARD" category aircraft.

You don't need all the flight instruments in an experimental for day VFR....only for IFR, plus the applicable night equipment for night ops.

Having just installed a 430W and the airplane had an SL-30, I can honestly say that this is an awesome combination....I often will use the SL-30 on LOC while I shoot a GPS approach with the 430W, both coupled to the Dynon.

Best,
 
actually the way section "a" reads is that only section C(3) and "e" are exempt from the standard category applicability. IFR is under section "d". Not sure this is how it was meant to be interpreted.


2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.

I don't read this as requiring a VOR because I don't plan to "use" the VOR. Doesn't the pilot get to decide what ground facilities are to be used? If I'm going to an airport with a GPS approach and a VOR and file to that airport as my destination and intend to shoot the GPS then I'm not planning to use any ground facilities for Navigation. I guess the appropriateness of the GPS would be that the ground facility (in this case the airport itself) was entered in GPS database???

Let me throw a fun little twist in this discussion. Did you know ATC considers RADAR vectors a valid form of IFR Navigation? This happens all the time during transition from the enroute to terminal environment. We (Navy) file and fly long distance IFR (via part 91) without any other form of Navigation other than RADAR vectors since most of our aircraft only have TACANs (we have GPS but not certified). TACANs are being phased out quickly. What is my point. Well...if your destination is covered by ATC RADAR and the FAR doesn't specify an equipment type, only equipment appropriate for ground facilities to be used, your radio then becomes the appropriate Navigation equipment since you'll be under vectors. I wouldn't advise planning for this without knowing your route and the coverage well enough however. Just making a point about the leeway the FAR leaves for interpretation. Better have planned for and have weather for the visual approach though :) I've had the local ATC folks to the squadron to discuss this very topic.

This debate will go on and on. Honestly, I'm not going to worry about it. I'm not putting a VOR/LOC/ILS in my plane. I'm still going to fly IFR/IMC when I want to. I'm not any less safe than the guy with a VOR provided I choose my destinations appropriately for the approaches and weather during the flight. If I get ramp checked I'll let my $1000 free AOPA legal representation work for me (which will be used up in the first phone call).
 
430 gone blank

Slyfox,
If I were you, I would go with a 430 and SL30 together. The reason is if your 430 decide to take a dump, you have no other viable option where is with SL30, you can absolutely do much. When I was building mine, I wasn't sure about IFR and didn't know how important VOR is for IFR so but now I wish I had installed a SL30 in place of my SL40.
Yea but in the real world that hand held GPS will be an "aid to navigation!"-I'm not talking about legality here- For me, if the 430 dies then the other GPS becomes the primary NAV depending on the situation. What would you do if navigating to the IAF on a GPS RNAV and the 430 is acting up- VFR is 150 miles away and you have fuel for 155 miles. A VOR approach with the SL30 is 50 miles or continue with a hand held to this "above minimums" approach? I have had this discussion with pilots that have a lot of experience. Then the conversation always tend to turn towards Ice for some reason:p. Why would thay add that into the mix!
 
Last edited:
Now, I'm not experienced with any of this so bare with me on my questions. Lets say I have the 430w and 430only and it does decide to pick the time to go out when I'm in use of the equipment. I know murphy's law here. What does a person do. I for one will use what I have, the 696. Why not? I can also use the compass and if talking to ATC vector out of the area to a known VFR spot. I'm sure a person could also do a visual down to 600ft if vectored propertly. Now for me I don't let my airplane get below 20gals of fuel, that will take me quit far. Why, me and the wife need to get out of the plane after at least 1hour and 1.5 hours at most.

What I need and I am pushing for is the absolute minimum to put in the airplane for navigation. REason isn't for cost so much as to the space on my current panel. The other reason is what if I don't use IFR much in the future, I'm stuck with a panel with stuff in it that is a waste so to speak. I currently don't know what I'll be using it for or the mission. Like anything, that will be determined once I start flying IFR.

I also need to think of training, I want it in MY airplane. So I need to know from a CFII what is absolutely needed in my airplane to train and pass the check ride.
 
You guys are making way too much of it. Let's simplify here: The Garmin 430W is approved as a "sole source of navigation".
 
...
This debate will go on and on. Honestly, I'm not going to worry about it. I'm not putting a VOR/LOC/ILS in my plane. I'm still going to fly IFR/IMC when I want to. I'm not any less safe than the guy with a VOR provided I choose my destinations appropriately for the approaches and weather during the flight. If I get ramp checked I'll let my $1000 free AOPA legal representation work for me (which will be used up in the first phone call).
If your GPS has WAAS, you are good to go.
If you don't have WAAS, you are required to have an operational alternate form of navigation, and if an alternate airport is required, it must have an approach compatible with your alternate form of navigation (can't have only GPS approaches). I don't have the reg numbers handy.
 
wrong. If the forecast weather at your destination requires you to file an alternate airfield the alternate and the aircraft must have a non GPS approach capability even though you can still shoot a GPS approach to the alternate if it exits. If the weather at destination is forcasted to be good enough to not require an alternate then no other form of Navigation is required other than whatever is appropriate for your intended destination. When the VORs are eventually taken out of service the stipulation requiring a non GPS form of Navigation will have to be removed.

This discussion is about what min equipment is REQUIRED to fly IFR. Not what equipment is needed to provide the absolute utmost in IFR capability under all weather conditions to every airport. I know, I started the thread :)
 
Back
Top