Hello. On the track of purchasing VFR 6A, and was curious of the least amount of equiptment needed to make my future flyer IFR? A list would be great, as I would imagine someone has either posted it within already, or has this info tucked away in the back of their mind. Ballpark price figure (used to new) would also be appreciated. Regards, DM
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
IFR equipment list
- Thread starter drmax
- Start date
Mike D
Well Known Member
This has been hashed out many times here on VAF and other sites. But I am also looking to do the same. Also there is a lot of wrong info out there.
For the truth, check the FAR's. Part 91.205
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.3.7.3
But there is the minimum and the practical.
Per the FAR's, you don't need a heated pitot. But wisdom sais you should.
Then it also depends on what you mean by IFR capable. VOR only? Or is a GPS needed to give you more options?
As for cost, it depends on what you are starting with. Also you really need to dig into the real cost. After some research, I am under the impression you not only need a certified GPS, but the install needs to meet the certifications as well. So, you might go for a older Garmin GPS 155, but now you need an announciator also. The GNS 430 does not need this.
Do you need WAAS? That is a very expensive option at the moment, but lowers your minimums.
My -6A is techanically IFR capable, but in reality my approachs are limited because I only have a VOR. I am looking for a GNS430W but those things are darn expensive. I have no idea why someone would buy an unknown condition 430 for only a $500 discount off brand new.
What I did was to look at several approaches and compare the VOR, ILS, GPS, and LPV differences and availability. My choice is to go with a 430w for the ability and resale value. Maybe a single Garmin SL30 just might work great for you.
I hope more experienced folks chime in, because I would like to find a more frugle way to my mission.
For the truth, check the FAR's. Part 91.205
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.3.7.3
But there is the minimum and the practical.
Per the FAR's, you don't need a heated pitot. But wisdom sais you should.
Then it also depends on what you mean by IFR capable. VOR only? Or is a GPS needed to give you more options?
As for cost, it depends on what you are starting with. Also you really need to dig into the real cost. After some research, I am under the impression you not only need a certified GPS, but the install needs to meet the certifications as well. So, you might go for a older Garmin GPS 155, but now you need an announciator also. The GNS 430 does not need this.
Do you need WAAS? That is a very expensive option at the moment, but lowers your minimums.
My -6A is techanically IFR capable, but in reality my approachs are limited because I only have a VOR. I am looking for a GNS430W but those things are darn expensive. I have no idea why someone would buy an unknown condition 430 for only a $500 discount off brand new.
What I did was to look at several approaches and compare the VOR, ILS, GPS, and LPV differences and availability. My choice is to go with a 430w for the ability and resale value. Maybe a single Garmin SL30 just might work great for you.
I hope more experienced folks chime in, because I would like to find a more frugle way to my mission.
u didn't mention $
As FlyingA said, 91.205 has the list. I am adding a link to the Title 14 CFAR.
Note: Our Experimental aircraft are not Standard Category aircraft that this CFAR calls out BUT our Operating Limitations makes this CFAR required for Night and IFR flight.
Here is a paste of most of 91.205.
(b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the following instruments and equipment are required:
Note: Our Experimental aircraft are not Standard Category aircraft that this CFAR calls out BUT our Operating Limitations makes this CFAR required for Night and IFR flight.
Here is a paste of most of 91.205.
(b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Airspeed indicator. (2) Altimeter.
(3) Magnetic direction indicator.
(4) Tachometer for each engine.
(5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine using pressure system.
(6) Temperature gauge for each liquid-cooled engine.
(7) Oil temperature gauge for each air-cooled engine.
(8) Manifold pressure gauge for each altitude engine.
(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank.
(10) Landing gear position indicator, if the aircraft has a retractable landing gear.
(11) For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operation of the aircraft may continue to a location where repairs or replacement can be made.
(12) If the aircraft is operated for hire over water and beyond power-off gliding distance from shore, approved flotation gear readily available to each occupant and, unless the aircraft is operating under part 121 of this subchapter, at least one pyrotechnic signaling device. As used in this section, "shore" means that area of the land adjacent to the water which is above the high water mark and excludes land areas which are intermittently under water.
(13) An approved safety belt with an approved metal-to-metal latching device for each occupant 2 years of age or older.
(14) For small civil airplanes manufactured after July 18, 1978, an approved shoulder harness for each front seat. The shoulder harness must be designed to protect the occupant from serious head injury when the occupant experiences the ultimate inertia forces specified in Sec. 23.561(b)(2) of this chapter. Each shoulder harness installed at a flight crewmember station must permit the crewmember, when seated and with the safety belt and shoulder harness fastened, to perform all functions necessary for flight operations. For purposes of this paragraph--
(i) The date of manufacture of an airplane is the date the inspection acceptance records reflect that the airplane is complete and meets the FAA-approved type design data; and (ii) A front seat is a seat located at a flight crewmember station or any seat located alongside such a seat.
(i) Each front seat that meets the requirements of Sec. 23.785 (g) and (h) of this chapter in effect on December 12, 1985; (ii) Each additional seat that meets the requirements of Sec. 23.785(g) of this chapter in effect on December 12, 1985.
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section. (2) Approved position lights.
(3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system on all U.S.-registered civil aircraft. Anticollision light systems initially installed after August 11, 1971, on aircraft for which a type certificate was issued or applied for before August 11, 1971, must at least meet the anticollision light standards of part 23, 25, 27, or 29 of this chapter, as applicable, that were in effect on August 10, 1971, except that the color may be either aviation red or aviation white. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operations with the aircraft may be continued to a stop where repairs or replacement can be made.
(4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light.
(5) An adequate source of electrical energy for all installed electrical and radio equipment.
(6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required, that are accessible to the pilot in flight.
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section. (2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.
(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:
(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in Sec. 121.305(j) of this chapter; and (ii) Rotorcraft with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of ±80 degrees of pitch and ±120 degrees of roll and installed in accordance with Sec. 29.1303(g) of this chapter.
(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation.
(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.
(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).
(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).
Ok just need min to qualify for training. I've got plenty of panel space. Don't really want a bunch of singular items. Keep down the clutterThis has been hashed out many times here on VAF and other sites. But I am also looking to do the same. Also there is a lot of wrong info out there.
For the truth, check the FAR's. Part 91.205
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.3.7.3
But there is the minimum and the practical.
Per the FAR's, you don't need a heated pitot. But wisdom sais you should.
Then it also depends on what you mean by IFR capable. VOR only? Or is a GPS needed to give you more options?
As for cost, it depends on what you are starting with. Also you really need to dig into the real cost. After some research, I am under the impression you not only need a certified GPS, but the install needs to meet the certifications as well. So, you might go for a older Garmin GPS 155, but now you need an announciator also. The GNS 430 does not need this.
Do you need WAAS? That is a very expensive option at the moment, but lowers your minimums.
My -6A is techanically IFR capable, but in reality my approachs are limited because I only have a VOR. I am looking for a GNS430W but those things are darn expensive. I have no idea why someone would buy an unknown condition 430 for only a $500 discount off brand new.
Ok just need something to get started training in my plain. I got a goog
What I did was to look at several approaches and compare the VOR, ILS, GPS, and LPV differences and availability. My choice is to go with a 430w for the ability and resale value. Maybe a single Garmin SL30 just might work great for you.
I hope more experienced folks chime in, because I would like to find a more frugle way to my mission.
Mike D
Well Known Member
If you are starting from scratch, I would get a EFIS capable of displaying the output from a Garmin SL30. With these two items you can legally fly IFR for training purposes. You will realistically need some sort of DME as most instructors take a VOR/DME to be the minimum. BUT... This leaves you with no backups and I would not fly this in true IMC.
So, you could buy aircraft spruce's dynon package A:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/dynonPackages.php
? Dynon FlightDEK D180 w/ Super Bright
? Dynon EFIS Harness
? Garmin SL 30 NAV/COM w/ Harness
? Garmin GTX 327 Transponder w/ Harness
$8744.00
You could also go with another EFIS like Garmin, GRT, AFS, MGL, or a different Dynon.
You will also need some antennas.
I suggest you see what your instructor thinks he/she is comfortable with an go from there.
There is a world of difference between a basic VFR and a basic IFR panel. Big difference in $$.
So, you could buy aircraft spruce's dynon package A:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/dynonPackages.php
? Dynon FlightDEK D180 w/ Super Bright
? Dynon EFIS Harness
? Garmin SL 30 NAV/COM w/ Harness
? Garmin GTX 327 Transponder w/ Harness
$8744.00
You could also go with another EFIS like Garmin, GRT, AFS, MGL, or a different Dynon.
You will also need some antennas.
I suggest you see what your instructor thinks he/she is comfortable with an go from there.
There is a world of difference between a basic VFR and a basic IFR panel. Big difference in $$.
gotcha and thx. a friend just recently recommended slapping in a garming 430. i'll kick it around. I'll eventually want whatever it is i get (and nothing i need to squint to see) be able to couple with at least a 2 axis a/p, and also be able to show weather and traffic. only gonna do this once....just like the plane i get.
A few thoughts:
1. I'm a cfii and I've taught plenty of pilots in aircraft with just VOR/ILS, no DME.
2. No one has mentioned it, but you really should have a back up to the basic flight instruments if you are contemplating actual IMC. In Cessnas this means a vacuum driven AI and an electrical TC. In most RV's where everything is electrical the general solution is to have 2 independent EFIS units. Backup examples include the Dynon D6 or the new TT Gemini, each with its own battery. OR, mechanical airspeed and altimeter, with a battery powered TC or ADI like instrument. OR, a full blown second main EFIS with a second electrical buss.
3. Per FAA A/C, the FAA will now approve a deviation from the FARs using a second AI in place of a TC, provided it has an independent power source from the primary AI. See #2.
4. The SL-30 has the nice feature that it can display the radial to a second VOR while you track the first VOR, or the localizer. A single SL-30 is all you would need for your flight test, and to access many airports. However, many airports have an ILS which says "ADF required", in which case you need an ADF (!) or a certified GPS receiver. At most airports the outer marker is determined by marker beacons, ADF, or GPS (certified) fix, so you would need a MB receiver at a minimum (about $500) to get into these airports. Note the FAA is doing away with marker beacons; more and more airports are getting a FAF designated by a localizer and a cross fix from a VOR. The SL-30 would get you into these airports with nothing else.
5. More and more airports are getting GPS approaches, and with much lower minimums than VOR approaches (especially if you have a WAAS GPS). And you save $500 because now you don't need a marker beacon receiver. Yes, they are unfortunately expensive. Right now Garmin has pretty much a monopoly on this market. And you have to pay for database updates, too. And yes, almost everyone's operating limitations say words to the effect "approved for IFR if you follow part 91 rules", and part 91 requires you to use a certified GPS receiver if you use gps for IFR. Keep an eye on GRT. Along with their new HXr, they are promising their own IFR approved GPS, at a lower cost than Garmin.
1. I'm a cfii and I've taught plenty of pilots in aircraft with just VOR/ILS, no DME.
2. No one has mentioned it, but you really should have a back up to the basic flight instruments if you are contemplating actual IMC. In Cessnas this means a vacuum driven AI and an electrical TC. In most RV's where everything is electrical the general solution is to have 2 independent EFIS units. Backup examples include the Dynon D6 or the new TT Gemini, each with its own battery. OR, mechanical airspeed and altimeter, with a battery powered TC or ADI like instrument. OR, a full blown second main EFIS with a second electrical buss.
3. Per FAA A/C, the FAA will now approve a deviation from the FARs using a second AI in place of a TC, provided it has an independent power source from the primary AI. See #2.
4. The SL-30 has the nice feature that it can display the radial to a second VOR while you track the first VOR, or the localizer. A single SL-30 is all you would need for your flight test, and to access many airports. However, many airports have an ILS which says "ADF required", in which case you need an ADF (!) or a certified GPS receiver. At most airports the outer marker is determined by marker beacons, ADF, or GPS (certified) fix, so you would need a MB receiver at a minimum (about $500) to get into these airports. Note the FAA is doing away with marker beacons; more and more airports are getting a FAF designated by a localizer and a cross fix from a VOR. The SL-30 would get you into these airports with nothing else.
5. More and more airports are getting GPS approaches, and with much lower minimums than VOR approaches (especially if you have a WAAS GPS). And you save $500 because now you don't need a marker beacon receiver. Yes, they are unfortunately expensive. Right now Garmin has pretty much a monopoly on this market. And you have to pay for database updates, too. And yes, almost everyone's operating limitations say words to the effect "approved for IFR if you follow part 91 rules", and part 91 requires you to use a certified GPS receiver if you use gps for IFR. Keep an eye on GRT. Along with their new HXr, they are promising their own IFR approved GPS, at a lower cost than Garmin.
Mark33
Well Known Member
My setup is different than most everyone else in that I'm not using any navigation radios. I am going strictly with GPS navigation in my 7. In my current airplane, I find myself only turning on the nav radios to exercise them from time to time.....I never use them for navigation. So, with that in mind, and anticipating VOR's to be slowly decommissioned as time goes on, I just decided to go strictly GPS navigation and forego any VOR based navigation radios. I do have all of the rest of the goodies though including a three screen G3X system and two of the new MGL V6 com radios along with a Dynon D10A for an independent backup. My question is related to IFR flight though. With my setup (no nav radio), if I were to add a certified WAAS GPS, would my airplane have everything needed to file and fly IFR and land at airports with a GPS approach?
Thank you,
Mark
Thank you,
Mark
The answer is yes, as long as you have a GPS which is certified to the WAAS standard. The earlier, non-WAAS TSO standard did not allow GPS to be sole-source navigation. The newer WAAS standard does.
However, under current rules you cannot take the practical flight test for an instrument rating, nor an IPC, in such an airplane, since the rules require you to demonstrate two different non precision approaches.
Going without an ILS will hurt once in a while. Last winter I took an instrument student on his x/c, planning to do the GPS LPV approach at KCIC. However, the DA for that approach is 300' agl. The wx was 200 and 1/2. The ILS got us in, no way we would have made it on the GPS.
However, under current rules you cannot take the practical flight test for an instrument rating, nor an IPC, in such an airplane, since the rules require you to demonstrate two different non precision approaches.
Going without an ILS will hurt once in a while. Last winter I took an instrument student on his x/c, planning to do the GPS LPV approach at KCIC. However, the DA for that approach is 300' agl. The wx was 200 and 1/2. The ILS got us in, no way we would have made it on the GPS.
Mark33
Well Known Member
It's to bad that one of these manufactures don't come out with a low cost, no frills "certified" WAAS GPS that would interface with our fancy new EFIS systems. What I envision is basically a remote mount unit with no screen, no com radio, no nothing,... but a Certified WASS GPS that would link in and be controlled by an EFIS. With the approaching 2020 deadline for ADS-B compliance and the need for a certified GPS to work with this system, it would be really great to see a low cost unit that would satisfy both the ADS-B and IFR flight requirement.
That is something I know a few EFIS vendors are working towards, but it's just not that simple. The TSO's aren't just for the GPS chip itself, but the entire "Navigator" system end to end (display, databases, I/O, software of the entire thing, etc..), which I believe would be difficult for any of the current experiemntal GPSes to match at this point. At some point in the future perhaps, but it's a much bigger step that just plugging in a GPS receiver box into an EFIS and calling it good (though I wouldn't be surprised to see some marketing that would lead people to believe that).
Just my 2 cents as usual.
Cheers,
Mark33
Well Known Member
So basically as it stands, even VFR pilots will be forced to have an IFR aircraft to comply with the ADS-B requirement of interfacing with a "Certified WASS GPS". So, we will be forced to install, at a minimum, a $10K piece of equipment, to satisfy the ADS-B requirement even if we are only a VFR pilot....I sure hope someone comes up with a better solution.
Brantel
Well Known Member
This is incorrect.....
While I don't have time to look up the particular TSO #'s, there is an approved TSO that will meet the requirements as a position source without all the other requirements required to be met by the panel mounted approach certified units. This should significantly reduce the cost associated with an approved position source.
Matter of fact even the 4?0W/5?0W and the new GTN 6??/7?? don't even meet the requirements yet until Garmin comes up with a firmware upgrade for them.
http://www8.garmin.com/aviation/notices/1215.pdf
Brian is right - which is where this gets quite confusing at the moment. There is a distinct difference between a certified unit (used as a "Naviagor") and a certified source of position. One does not equal the other, but one is needed for differing purposes than the other. Things will likely get cheaper, not more expensive. Look for some news at OSH.
Cheers,
Stein
Mark33
Well Known Member
That's great news...I look forward to hearing more about this and to see what comes down the pipe. My G3X system along with the extended squitter mode S transponder is ready to go and just waiting on a viable solution to complying with the ADS-B "out" mandate....not to mention the benefits of having free ADS-B "in".
Ken K,
I respectfully disagree. You are correct about the alternate requirements, but a careful reading of the rules shows that non-WAAS GPS is required to be backed up by something else, usually a VOR, while enroute. In fact, it is technically illegal to make an IFR flight with a non-WAAS unit if the VORs on your route are NOTAM'd out of service.
I agree most pilots are unaware of the details of the rules (most cannot quote the alternate rules, as you did) and don't bother with them. The non-WAAS units came out in the early days of GPS and the FAA took a very conservative approach, which was only relaxed with the WAAS rules.
As to why certified GPS is so expensive:
The TSOs involve all sorts of stuff, including software testing, etc. Read the fine print in your 430 manual and you will see where Garmin got a waiver, or a ruling of equivalency, etc. All this paperwork costs money.
Garmin has a virtual monopoly. The anti trust guys at the government should never have allowed Garmin to buy out UPS\Appollo, but it happened.
GRT claims to be offering an IFR approved unit at less cost than Garmin. But I don't think anyone has seen it yet.
I respectfully disagree. You are correct about the alternate requirements, but a careful reading of the rules shows that non-WAAS GPS is required to be backed up by something else, usually a VOR, while enroute. In fact, it is technically illegal to make an IFR flight with a non-WAAS unit if the VORs on your route are NOTAM'd out of service.
I agree most pilots are unaware of the details of the rules (most cannot quote the alternate rules, as you did) and don't bother with them. The non-WAAS units came out in the early days of GPS and the FAA took a very conservative approach, which was only relaxed with the WAAS rules.
As to why certified GPS is so expensive:
The TSOs involve all sorts of stuff, including software testing, etc. Read the fine print in your 430 manual and you will see where Garmin got a waiver, or a ruling of equivalency, etc. All this paperwork costs money.
Garmin has a virtual monopoly. The anti trust guys at the government should never have allowed Garmin to buy out UPS\Appollo, but it happened.
GRT claims to be offering an IFR approved unit at less cost than Garmin. But I don't think anyone has seen it yet.
Mike D
Well Known Member
Brian,
Are you talking about TSO-C145c?
Seems like there are a some add on cards that will meet this. (NexNav)
http://www.accord-technology.com/pdfs/NexNav_MAX_CCA.pdf
I am no expert, just a internet reader
But Stein is right. There is a world of difference between having the capable electronics, and supporting it from a database perspective. Seems there are also some testing that needs to be done once it is installed that will allow legal IFR flight. Without the testing it is just a very accurate VFR box. Correct me if I am wrong.
OSH should bring some news.
Are you talking about TSO-C145c?
Seems like there are a some add on cards that will meet this. (NexNav)
http://www.accord-technology.com/pdfs/NexNav_MAX_CCA.pdf
I am no expert, just a internet reader
But Stein is right. There is a world of difference between having the capable electronics, and supporting it from a database perspective. Seems there are also some testing that needs to be done once it is installed that will allow legal IFR flight. Without the testing it is just a very accurate VFR box. Correct me if I am wrong.
OSH should bring some news.
Note to original poster
I fly our RV-6A IFR with a vacuum driven system, SL30, SL-60 (GPS), Terra Nav (VOR/LOC/GS). I can almost always find an approach that will allow me to land at any airport (ILS Rwy 30 to Goodland, KS last week) but if you are going to fly the RV-6 in IMC I strongly recommend that you install a Tru Trak or other RV-6 compatible autopilot. I flew ours IFR for a year without it and it is too demanding almost to be practicle.
Bob Axsom
I fly our RV-6A IFR with a vacuum driven system, SL30, SL-60 (GPS), Terra Nav (VOR/LOC/GS). I can almost always find an approach that will allow me to land at any airport (ILS Rwy 30 to Goodland, KS last week) but if you are going to fly the RV-6 in IMC I strongly recommend that you install a Tru Trak or other RV-6 compatible autopilot. I flew ours IFR for a year without it and it is too demanding almost to be practicle.
Bob Axsom
Straight from the FAA:
"If your system is a TSO-C129, any required alternate must have an approved instrument procedure other than GPS, and your aircraft must have the appropriate equipment to fly the approach."
Pretty much sums it up. Hope that helps!
Cheers,
Stein
Those particular rules are dependent on the TSO of the particular unit one is referring to. It's different for the 129, 145 and 146 boxes. Depending on what we're talking about, each person could be correct under the right circumstances with the right units under the right TSO. I belive the ground based references in 91 were removed...dependent on TSO's.
Incidentally, the NexNav box is TSO 145c, which is primarily aimed at installations with certified FMS's and displays to complete the entire loop. 146 is the sole source navigator, and simply adding a 145 box to a non certified EFIS may or may not meet the specs...I'll withold opinion on that until I see what sort of integration testing the mfgr does if they decide to go that way.
It's also interesting to note there are actually a lot of WAAS certified boxes out there...Garmin just happens to be the cheapest and one of the few available to us.
Cheers,
Stein
I found it. From chapter 1 of the AIM, under GPS operations.
For operations with TSO C129, note (b) below:
===================
1. Authorization to conduct any GPS operation under IFR requires that:
(a) GPS navigation equipment used must be approved in accordance with the requirements specified in Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C129, or equivalent, and the installation must be done in accordance with Advisory Circular AC 20-138, Airworthiness Approval of Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation Equipment for Use as a VFR and IFR Supplemental Navigation System, or Advisory Circular AC 20-130A, Airworthiness Approval of Navigation or Flight Management Systems Integrating Multiple Navigation Sensors, or equivalent. Equipment approved in accordance with TSO-C115a does not meet the requirements of TSO-C129. Visual flight rules (VFR) and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a principal instrument flight reference. During IFR operations they may be considered only an aid to situational awareness.
(b) Aircraft using GPS navigation equipment under IFR must be equipped with an approved and operational alternate means of navigation appropriate to the flight. Active monitoring of alternative navigation equipment is not required if the GPS receiver uses RAIM for integrity monitoring. Active monitoring of an alternate means of navigation is required when the RAIM capability of the GPS equipment is lost.
For operations with TSO C129, note (b) below:
===================
1. Authorization to conduct any GPS operation under IFR requires that:
(a) GPS navigation equipment used must be approved in accordance with the requirements specified in Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C129, or equivalent, and the installation must be done in accordance with Advisory Circular AC 20-138, Airworthiness Approval of Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation Equipment for Use as a VFR and IFR Supplemental Navigation System, or Advisory Circular AC 20-130A, Airworthiness Approval of Navigation or Flight Management Systems Integrating Multiple Navigation Sensors, or equivalent. Equipment approved in accordance with TSO-C115a does not meet the requirements of TSO-C129. Visual flight rules (VFR) and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a principal instrument flight reference. During IFR operations they may be considered only an aid to situational awareness.
(b) Aircraft using GPS navigation equipment under IFR must be equipped with an approved and operational alternate means of navigation appropriate to the flight. Active monitoring of alternative navigation equipment is not required if the GPS receiver uses RAIM for integrity monitoring. Active monitoring of an alternate means of navigation is required when the RAIM capability of the GPS equipment is lost.
Here's more from the AIM, from the WAAS section:
============
7. Unlike TSO-C129 avionics, which were certified as a supplement to other means of navigation, WAAS avionics are evaluated without reliance on other navigation systems. As such, installation of WAAS avionics does not require the aircraft to have other equipment appropriate to the route to be flown.
============
7. Unlike TSO-C129 avionics, which were certified as a supplement to other means of navigation, WAAS avionics are evaluated without reliance on other navigation systems. As such, installation of WAAS avionics does not require the aircraft to have other equipment appropriate to the route to be flown.
Mark33
Well Known Member
So the plott thickens! I know you have to have a TSO'd Certified WAAS GPS to file, fly, and land to a GPS approach to be full compliant and legal, but in real life precision, how much more accurate is a "certified" WAAS GPS VS. a "non certified " WAAS GPS such as the one that comes in the G3X system?
No, that's not correct. A certified TSO C129 non-WAAS GPS CAN be used to fly enroute, and execute a GPS approach, under IFR. You will only be able to do non-precision LNAV approaches. Precision LPV approaches require the WAAS certified unit. And as I hope I convinced others, the TSO 129 non-WAAS unit requires that you have other nav equipment (usually a VOR) on board and functional. And as we all agree, the rules for the alternates are different.
Now as to your question: Your non-certified waas gps is almost certainly inherently more accurate than the certified unit. This is because certification costs are so high, the certified unit has a "frozen design" gps engine which is several generations old. However, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the uncertified database. No matter how good the basic gps is if it cannot accurately change lat/long into a position relative to some fix, then that is its real limitation. I suspect initially it's very good, but you probably don't update the database as often as required for the certified unit, so as new fixes are added, or worse moved, it may become obsolete. It also doesn't have to meet other standards, such as showing that it won't lose lock when you are transmitting, for example.
In an emergency I wouldn't hesitate to use it, though.
Now as to your question: Your non-certified waas gps is almost certainly inherently more accurate than the certified unit. This is because certification costs are so high, the certified unit has a "frozen design" gps engine which is several generations old. However, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the uncertified database. No matter how good the basic gps is if it cannot accurately change lat/long into a position relative to some fix, then that is its real limitation. I suspect initially it's very good, but you probably don't update the database as often as required for the certified unit, so as new fixes are added, or worse moved, it may become obsolete. It also doesn't have to meet other standards, such as showing that it won't lose lock when you are transmitting, for example.
In an emergency I wouldn't hesitate to use it, though.
Mark33
Well Known Member
That's great to hear....but it's kind of sad to think that due to government bureaucracy that a non certified unit would actually work better than the certified ones...but I guess that holds true for the entire airplane....(certified VS. experiential)!! When "free" people get to do what they want, it always works out better for everyone!
Just my two cents
A/P
My thread so I'll ask this question whilst I have your attention...wut would be the most affordable/reliable in a 2 axis a/p for the 6A? I may have a multi functional type panel like was discussed here, like the the GTX or Dynon (efis), and was thinking that if I were to find the syncro's at a deal, I could buy a little at a time. Just wanted to make sure it was interchangable/compatible. Share your thoughts please. Thx, DM
My thread so I'll ask this question whilst I have your attention...wut would be the most affordable/reliable in a 2 axis a/p for the 6A? I may have a multi functional type panel like was discussed here, like the the GTX or Dynon (efis), and was thinking that if I were to find the syncro's at a deal, I could buy a little at a time. Just wanted to make sure it was interchangable/compatible. Share your thoughts please. Thx, DM
It really depends on what EFIS you end up using. For example, the TruTrak and Trio A/P's will interface with almost any EFIS (AFS, GRT, MGL, Garmin) except for Dynon. Conversely the Dynon autopilot is propietary and is part of the Dynon EFIS, therefore will only interface with a Dynon EFIS. The EFIS sort of dictates the autopilot if you'd like it interfaced to said EFIS.
There are tons and tons of threads on this, and you can configure things in almost infinite ways.
Cheers,
Stein
ok thx. i'll cross that bridge when i get to it.
Mike D
Well Known Member
Stein, I am assuming GRT, AFS, MGL, and Garmin interface with the TT head. So you could not buy TT servos and drive them through the GRT directly. Is this correct?
If so, I would be then under the impression that GRT has an added option over the others. Either drive the GRT servos directly or interface with the TT.
A 2-axis TT is much more expensive than the GRT servos but would act as a oh $@&! back up if the EFIS goes dark.
So back to the OP's question, a GRT sport with EIS and GRT servos interfaced with a SL30, using a hand held GPS as a back up, would be the cheapest way to go IFR. (if starting from scratch and buying new equipment) Correct?
I am no expert so the OP should just call Stein when he is ready. I am just curious.
If so, I would be then under the impression that GRT has an added option over the others. Either drive the GRT servos directly or interface with the TT.
A 2-axis TT is much more expensive than the GRT servos but would act as a oh $@&! back up if the EFIS goes dark.
So back to the OP's question, a GRT sport with EIS and GRT servos interfaced with a SL30, using a hand held GPS as a back up, would be the cheapest way to go IFR. (if starting from scratch and buying new equipment) Correct?
I am no expert so the OP should just call Stein when he is ready. I am just curious.
Just to muddy the waters, I've noticed that for about the same level of redundancy, you can pay about the same price.
e.g., If you already have 2 GRT EFIS units but only one AirData, Heading reference system: You can buy a second ADHRS and the GRT servos for about $3500; or you can buy a Trio Pro for about $3500.
But if you're willing to give up the redundancy factor, then an EFIS-driven autopilot from a single EFIS is less expensive than any other option that I can see.
e.g., If you already have 2 GRT EFIS units but only one AirData, Heading reference system: You can buy a second ADHRS and the GRT servos for about $3500; or you can buy a Trio Pro for about $3500.
But if you're willing to give up the redundancy factor, then an EFIS-driven autopilot from a single EFIS is less expensive than any other option that I can see.
Dynon D10
Looking at a rv with a dynon D10. I've done some snooping, even joining the Dynon forum to ask, can I simply add a/p servos to interface with this unit? I'd like to be able to add a inexpensive type tcas unit that could interface with the D10 Dynon efis. My friend has an RV7 with a small pnl mount tcas. Can't think of the name of it. I think it only shows altitude in reference to my aircraft.
Anyways gents, if you could answer any of this, I'll keep searching for my answers. Thx, DM
Looking at a rv with a dynon D10. I've done some snooping, even joining the Dynon forum to ask, can I simply add a/p servos to interface with this unit? I'd like to be able to add a inexpensive type tcas unit that could interface with the D10 Dynon efis. My friend has an RV7 with a small pnl mount tcas. Can't think of the name of it. I think it only shows altitude in reference to my aircraft.
Anyways gents, if you could answer any of this, I'll keep searching for my answers. Thx, DM
Without knowing your end goal here, I'm not sure of where to guide you. The D-10A will indeed work as an autopilot, but won't fly GPS approaches, and for real world IFR use, the HS34 is a must have in my opinion. It's ultimate capability also depends on the radios in it as well. Lastly, I'm not aware of any traffic device that will interface with the D-10A. If you're wondering about this plane and IFR, I'd need a LOT more info to know what to say. Sorry I can't be more help....
Cheers,
Stein
