What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Educate me on IFR.

akschu

akschu

Well Known Member
Patron
RVers,

I'm doing some thinking about my panel and am considering setting it up
for light IFR. I don't currently have my IFR ticket so I'm completely
ignorant about what I would want, however I do have an idea of what is
legal according to FAR 91.205:

VFR:
Airspeed
Altimeter
Compass
Tach
Oil pressure
Oil Temp
Fuel gauge
Anticollision lights
seat belts
ELT

Night VFR:
Position lights
Landing light

IFR:
Radio
Turn Indicator
Slip-skid Indicator
Adjustable Altimeter
Clock
Good Alternator
Attitude Indicator
Directional Gyro

Several other FARs talk about VOR and nav requirements for operating in
IFR conditions near the airport.

Now that is a lot of instrumentation, cost, and weight. I see many are
now installing glass panel systems such as the dynon and getting them
IFR tested, which would be much cheaper and lighter. I suspect that
doing so would be dangerous for extended IFR use given the dependence on
a single instrument or electrical system, but I wonder if a simple glass
setup would be good enough to train in and cut though occasional layers.

The reason I ask is because setting up my airplane for IFR would
probably be cheaper than renting when doing IFR training, and if it was
IFR ready, I could use it to get in to an airport without a special if I
ever find myself in that situation.

Anyway here is what I'm thinking:

MGL voyager (http://www.mglavionics.com/html/voyager.html) 4lbs
Sigma-tek Vacuum Attitude Indicator 1.9lbs
Garmin SL-30 nav/com 3.3lbs
Garmin GTX-327 transponder 3.1lbs
Garmin 296 GPS in panel doc 2lbs

The idea is that the voyager would provide the airspeed, altimeter,
tach, oil pressure, oil Temp, fuel, turn indicator, slip-skid indicator,
attitude indicator, and directional gyro. For backups I would have the
sigma-tek for backup attitude, and garmin 296 for altitude, ground
speed, VOR, and DG. I would have my backups if I had electrical failure
due to the vacuum on the AI and battery on the 296.

The SL30 and mgl will work together allowing me to use the mgl as the
HSI and the mgl can send radio channel change requests to the sl30 which
is kinda neat.

This setup weighs 15lbs which is pretty light for what it can do, and it
also meets the letter of the law given that it will certify, but want to
check with others and confirm that this setup is sane before I go any
further planning it. So now the question :) does this look like it will
work?

Thanks,
schu
 
The 1st thing I would suggest if you are going to get your instrument rating is to quit thinking in terms such as "light IFR" or hard ifr.

There is just IFR and your equipment, training, and skills should be sufficient to handle IMC to minimums on any given flight.
 
Do you think that IFR equipping the airplane for the purpose of training and not really flying much IFR is a bad idea?
 
I've been curious about this as well, so good post Schu.

I personally would rather not fly IFR, but I would like to get an IFR ticket just for the additional training/rating and safety factor. Doing the training in your own RV would cut the cost down a lot.

I would be willing to add a few gadgets to my panel to make it meet the basic IFR requirements. So an IFR panel for a pilot that never intends to fly IFR. Is there such a thing?
 
IFR is a good thing

You asked a BIG question. Ultimately IMHO IFR equipping your plane is a good thing for you and makes your plane more marketable should you decide to sell it to make another. What's even better is getting your IFR certification. It opens up more flying possibilities as well as making you a better pilot. Just don't go thinking you can plow into weather at will. Its a rather involved process.
 
I've thought the same thing.
One of the big issues may be insurance. Companies that I've talked with want 250 hours cross-x and ifr ticket to get any sort of reasonable rate.

I guess the alternative would be to get instuction (and pay) a friend that's an instructor and willing to fly in uninsured plane??

Otherwise, I suspect I'll just bite the bullet and get IFR ticket in rentals prior to first flight.
Tom H.
 
I could (and unfortunately have) written volumes (well, at least chapters) on the entire process of equipping aircraft for particular missions - VFR, IFR, local flying, cross-country, etc...). Rather than go into the details of how to pick a systems configuration, the thing that is interesting and different (to me) in your question is the idea of using a minimally equipped airplane for your primary instrument training. What you might very well find is that if you don't put enough in, you could end up without enough "stuff" to train yourself properly - or even to take a check ride. If you are equipped with an SL-30 as your only IFR nav receiver, you might find it hard to find 3 different approaches (in your local area) that you can fly for the check ride for instance. An IFR GPS is becoming almost required if you really want to be able to go places - we're finding that out with Louise's plane these days.

The IFR system is changing, as are the techniques and equipment used to operate in it. It is probably changing faster now than I have ever seen it, and you need to be able to adapt. I guess what I am trying to say is that you will be a better instrument pilot, and better equipped to handle more "stuff", if you think beyond the minimums. People are killed all the time when they train to the minimums and then get caught in something wore, or more complex. I am, actually, a believer that "Lite" IFR does exist - but it has much more to do with the discipline of th pilot in picking the weather in which he or she will fly., and how they protect their options, than it does with absolute weather conditions or equipment choices. Thinking of getting away with as little as possible is probably not a real good way to get into the clouds.

The good news is that feature for feature, electronic instrumentation is far and away getting cheaper and more reliable than steam gauge alternatives. Take some time to wander through the "Glass Cockpit" archives for ideas on architecture and equipment - you'll learn a lot - I know I have!

Paul
 
It's a 3.3 pound weight...

Ironflight said:
...... An IFR GPS is becoming almost required if you really want to be able to go places - we're finding that out with Louise's plane these days.
The IFR system is changing, as are the techniques and equipment used to operate in it. It is probably changing faster now than I have ever seen it, and you need to be able to adapt. .....Paul
Click to expand...

...penalty to change that SL-30 into a GNS-430W.

That would open up many more posibilities....:)
 
Hi Schu,

Couple of things I notice here. One is, you are willing to spend money for redundancy but plan on doing it with dedicated instruments and a vacuum system.

If I were starting from scratch today, I would forego the vacuum system and get a second EFIS. The difference in price is minimal, and to have to switch your thinking in the event of "EFIS Out" from one set of symbology in front of you to a completely different (and, face it, probably unfamiliar since you'll tend to ignore the backup day-to-day) display when you most need it is, IMHO, borrowing trouble. If you think cheap, just get two Dynon D-10As and, in typical use, use one for EFIS and the other for EMS. Or, do the same thing with Grand Rapids or Blue Mountain or MGL. The additional benefit of Dynon (and, soon, probably the others) is that for the price of servos you get autopilot. Oh, yeah - put the servo brackets in while you are building!!! Otherwise, you will kick yourself later...

In place of the vacuum pump? One of the many lightweight backup alternators. Or, leave it empty and save the weight (but have a substantial battery). Many EFIS / EMS systems are available with built-in battery backup, too, so the likelihood of total electrical failure causing you to lose all situational awareness is slight.

Want to save money? Wait a few months for the new MGL nav/comm. It will be SL 30 compatible, so you will lose no functionality over that option. Caveat: Check with wiser legal heads as to whether you would be considered IFR legal with that radio.

Position and landing lights - use LEDs. Less power drain, almost impossible to get actual failure (one element might go bad, but the group will still function).

One last note: You will NOT be legal to navigate point to point in IFR using the 296. The SL 30 (or MGL, if it qualifies) will only allow you to fly airways, etc.

Good luck!
 
Breister:
One last note: You will NOT be legal to navigate point to point in IFR using the 296. The SL 30 (or MGL, if it qualifies) will only allow you to fly airways, etc.

Not true. My 9A is equipped with an SL40, Val VOR/LOC, and a garmin 196. It is, what Paul refers to as, "IFR Lite". In today's environment, there are very few places where you can't navigate direct. When I file, I list "VFR GPS on board" in the remarks section. In nearly every case, before I reach my initial cruise altitude, ATC tells me "proceed direct". While so navigating, I continually pick out VORs in front of or behind me. This way, if I lose GPS signal, I can request amended clearance. If I lose the Val, the scenario becomes a little more complex, depending upon weather. The important thing is not to hesitate to advise ATC of the situation.
Terry, CFI
RV9A, N323TP
 
Ironflight said:
<SNIP? If you are equipped with an SL-30 as your only IFR nav receiver, you might find it hard to find 3 different approaches (in your local area) that you can fly for the check ride for instance. An IFR GPS is becoming almost required if you really want to be able to go places - we're finding that out with Louise's plane these days. <SNIP>

Paul
Click to expand...


To the OP, if you will excuse the little rant, I can't emphasize Paul's comment enough.

Some folks seem to think 1 or 2 VOR/LOC receivers are "good enough" but you will find you need much more capability to navigate through the system. Yes, you can go begging for vectors but there are times when ATC will say, "sorry, too busy, all I can give you is the full procedure". Furthermore, a lot of ILS approaches need DME or ADF support and a lot of airports have nothing but GPS approaches.

Some real-world examples: 1 airport near you, Willow (PAUO), has only 2 approaches, both of which require IFR GPS. Another one, Big Lake (PAGU), has 3 approaches, 2 of which require IFR GPS. The third one (see link below) technically requires only 1 VOR receiver. But here's the catch: the missed approach procedure is based on the same VORTAC as the inbound course, requiring you to reset your CDI while you're flying the procedure if you don't have a second VOR receiver. Also, the missed approach point can be identified by DME - but if you don't have DME, you're gonna be checking your stopwatch while you're doing 90 knots at less than 1000' AGL with 1 mile visibility.

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0901/05220V7.PDF

I'd recommend at least the following capabilities (regardless of what specific hardware you use):

1 or 2 VOR/LOC (1 with glideslope)
DME
ADF
IFR GPS (ENROUTE, TERMINAL, and APPROACH); optional WAAS

This doesn't necessarily require a lot of hardware - 1 SL30 and 1 GNS430 do the trick. If you can stand the shame of not having the latest and greatest Garmin color displays, a lot of older IFR GPS units will work just fine, too.
 
Last edited:
Many interesting responses, good information. There is a tremendous amount of wisdom in IronFlights comments about building an airplane for it's application. That said, I'll come clean. I'm not building an RV, I'm building a bearhawk (I live in Alaska and need a bush rig) but I love reading these forums because there is so much information here.

Anyway, single engine IFR in this state isn't something I want to play with, rather I would like to get my ticket for the training and perhaps cheaper insurance. Having the ability to go IFR instead of asking for a special would be pretty handy the few times it MIGHT happen, and the potential resale value doesn't hurt either. So my IFR requirements aren't that high, much more important is keeping things simple and light. Weight is everything when your operating off field so an IFR panel can't compromise that. If it comes down to VFR or a 30lb IFR panel with the maze of wires to boot I'll probably pick VFR.

Perhaps dual glass panels would be the way to go, but now we are talking about redundant electrical system, multiple AHRS sensors, and a bunch of other factors. Besides, can I trust the AHRS on a glass panel system? MEMS gyros can act pretty funky, especially in the cold. I figured a vacuum attitude sensor would give me independence from the electrical system while being more reliable. I suspect the weight of the vacuum pump is about the same as an electric attitude sensor and the backup battery.

As far as GPS goes, those are crazy expensive. Is there any alternative to a 430W? If I get one, I wouldn't be able to afford anything else other than the MGL, transponder, and the 296 I already have. Is that going to be enough to do IFR safely? Sounds like I would be just fine as long as nothing failed, but if something did die, I would be in trouble.

schu
 
akschu said:
...
VFR:
...
Anticollision lights
...

Night VFR:
...
Landing light
...
Click to expand...
When did Anti-collision lights become a requirement of D-VFR and
landing lights become a requirement for non-rev N-VFR flights?

I'm not saying they aren't a good thing but I'm not sure they are required.
 
N941WR, good eye, those aren't FAA requirement, but they are my requirements.

Webb, good suggestion.

I would really like to stay under $12k if that is even possible. Doesn't sound like it with the IFR GPS burning $8k of it.

Aircraft spruce has a package where they sell:
Dynon 180
HSI module
GNS 430w
GTX327 transponder

for $13279

But even then, I don't know if that would do what I need. I can add an SL30 for another $3500 and then I would have everything that was recommended, but no fault tolerance except for the handheld GPS and a second radio and I'm up to $17k.

It's just not looking like it's in the cards. What about used gear? Can I trust it?

Thanks,
schu
 
I'd feel perfectly comfortable with used equipment that was yellow tagged.

You can get a King KLN89B or similar (TSO'd IFR GPS) for $2K or less (probably way less). I'm pretty sure Garmin has similar older units. Add maybe $500 to $1K for the required annunciator/switching panel and CDI (or whatever hardware you need to get the GPS to talk to the Dynon).

Then add what, a couple of grand for an SL30? so that is $5K total vs. $8K+ for a GNS430. Of course, you could go for a used nav/comm radio, too.

The Spruce package you mentioned would give you a lot of capability Remember, the 430 has a com/nav radio built in, so you're getting a lot more than just a GPS. In fact, a panel with just a 430 and a transponder wouldn't be all that bad.
 
Gotta have a CDI

JHines said:
I'd feel perfectly comfortable with used equipment that was yellow tagged.

You can get a King KLN89B or similar (TSO'd IFR GPS) for $2K or less (probably way less). I'm pretty sure Garmin has similar older units. Add maybe $500 to $1K for the required annunciator/switching panel and CDI (or whatever hardware you need to get the GPS to talk to the Dynon).

Then add what, a couple of grand for an SL30? so that is $5K total vs. $8K+ for a GNS430. Of course, you could go for a used nav/comm radio, too.

The Spruce package you mentioned would give you a lot of capability Remember, the 430 has a com/nav radio built in, so you're getting a lot more than just a GPS. In fact, a panel with just a 430 and a transponder wouldn't be all that bad.
Click to expand...

Don't forget you have to have an external CDI for a valid IFR GPS.

Like I said, define your budget. Look at the attached list I posted and see what you have to have equipment wise. Then look at what you need to spend to get up to speed for IFR flight.

If money is tight, then equip the plane with 2 decent older radios, each with a CDI and 1 of those needs to have a glideslope. Make sure you have the other equipment such as a turn indicator. Buy yourself a used 196 for situational awareness (legal for that) and you can do you training and learn the "old fashioned way". Not bad advice since you need to know how to fly without a GPS. Spend the rest of the money on training and then graduate up to the next level of equipment as you can afford it. Consider setting up your panel for those upgrades later on.
 
akschu said:
...Dynon 180
HSI module
..
Thanks,
schu
Click to expand...
Schu,

Good list and I suggest you add the Dynon Auto Pilot. For $1500 you can add both servos and they will be a great help in the clouds. You can then add the AP74 or AP76 later, if you like.

Don?t worry about the price of these electronics at this point, by the time you need them the prices will change and there will be new/better products out there. Thus you might be able to buy a used D180 for a really good price when the time comes.
 
Webb said:
Don't forget you have to have an external CDI for a valid IFR GPS...
Click to expand...
Webb,

The D180 has an full HSI, including glide slope as does the Dynon's artificial horizon. So he is covered there.

Here's a picture, unfortunately it doesn't show the glide slope but it is there.
 
Last edited:
What is the deal with the garmin GNC 300XL it seems like I can't buy one of those unless I pay someone to install it. Also, what do they mean by "TSO-certified for non-precision approaches"? Basically what does a 430 buy me that a 300xl doesn't except for the better screen and nav radio? Like I said, I'm IFR ignorant. I've only been flying for 2 years.
 
Last edited:
akschu said:
MEMS gyros can act pretty funky
schu
Click to expand...

Not ours.

Ours are mounted in a tiny enclosure of their own, have wide range temperature compensation (this knows the temperature related errors and fixes them) in addition to a built in heater that ensures that the system always operates at a good temperature. So, in a nutshell, as you switch on the system in the middle of winter it uses the temperature compensation to get rid of errors and starts heating itself to a good temperature (which goes real quick due to the small size) and after that the temperature compensation hardly has any work to do.
For this reason temperature is not a worry factor in our lives.
The only issue (which is easily resolved normally) that affects the low cost gyros used by others and ourselves is vibration - too much of that and things don't look that rosy. Keep vibrations and airframe shocks at a reasonable limit and the systems work great. Our AHRS are now very popular for gliders and are used as OEM parts in other manufacturers systems. In gliders it is typically possible to fly five minutes of back-to-back aerobatics (i.e. no time for the AHRS to "find itself") without any noticable deviation of the horizon image from reality. Considering that this is an unaided AHRS makes this even more remarkable.
The above is for our SP-4 product.
Our SP-5 product uses BAe Systems developed gyros that are nearly immune to vibration - but at a cost (these are the same gyros used in something like a Crossbow AHRS-500).

Regarding IFR, in particular the Garmin 430.
Similar to one other EFIS maker, we are currently test flying full integration of the 430 into our Odyssey and Voyager via ARINC. This involved a lot of reverse engineering due to nearly complete lack of help from Garmin (Garmin does a couple of strange things with their labels).
Anyway, as it stands, the integration is full and involves VOR, ILS, glideslope, GPS flightplan navigation including use of the current 430 flightplan natively in our systems (including our live flightplan view). You can fly coupled approaches without even touching the Odyssey or Voyager.
If all goes well, this is going to be released as software update end of this week.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics
 
I installed my 300XL

akschu said:
What is the deal with the garmin GNC 300XL it seems like I can't buy one of those unless I pay someone to install it. Also, what do they mean by "TSO-certified for non-precision approaches"? Basically what does a 430 buy me that a 300xl doesn't except for the better screen and nav radio? Like I said, I'm IFR ignorant. I've only been flying for 2 years.
Click to expand...
I got my 300XL from John Stark. He had to do the wiring harness, but I installed it myself.
I did my whole IFR panel with autopilot for about 12K. I use the GRT Sport for the CDI, and the AK950L for the annunciators/switches required (see below).
 
akschu said:
What is the deal with the garmin GNC 300XL it seems like I can't buy one of those unless I pay someone to install it. Also, what do they mean by "TSO-certified for non-precision approaches"? Basically what does a 430 buy me that a 300xl doesn't except for the better screen and nav radio? Like I said, I'm IFR ignorant. I've only been flying for 2 years.
Click to expand...

The 300 XL is a very capable IFR GPS, just not as new and sexy as the 430. I'm not sure, though, that it wouldn't be cheaper to install a 430 vs the 300XL + nav/com. Pros & cons both ways.

A non precision approach means no vertical guidance - a glipeslope, like an ILS or a WAAS GPS approach gives you.
 
I'm not sure what that means, but I think it means that I don't need an SL30 and that I can get away with just the 430W.

So what is cheaper or more functional:

SL30 + 300XL

or

430W
 
As far as "cheaper", the SL3- + 300XL...as far as "more functional" the 430W is by far and away the choice to make. The difference is in the hundreds of $$'s, and the functionality from the 430W gives you much, much more all the way around over the SL-30 package.

Plus, the 430W will couple directly to a good mid-range TruTrak for approaches, etc.. if you have an EFIS failure. Not something you can do with the SL-30 unless you buy the high end Autopilot. All things considered, a 430W, a Digiflight IIVSGV and a good EFIS will give you the most overall IFR bang for your buck along with good reliability that will give you some sort of "backup" in case the EFIS gets ill. Don't get caught up in individual systems or mfgrs, because it's the entire package/installation that you need to keep in mind. Both from a form and more importantly function standpoint.

My 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein
 
Do I need the SL30 if I get the 430w? It is my understanding that I loose the DME functionality, but then again I'm not entirely sure what DME and ADF is since I don't have those things in my airplane and haven't done any IFR training.
 
akschu said:
Do I need the SL30 if I get the 430w? It is my understanding that I loose the DME functionality, but then again I'm not entirely sure what DME and ADF is since I don't have those things in my airplane and haven't done any IFR training.
Click to expand...

DME is Distance Measuring Equipment. A receiver in the aircraft calculates slant-range distance to a fixed ground transmitter (often co-located with a VOR station). Usually the receiver is capable of displaying ground speed and time-to-station, as well.

ADF is Automatic Direction Finder. A simple receiver that shows your relative bearing to the station it is tuned to (usually an NDB).

Both of these systems are obsolescent technically, but they are still heavily used to create approach procedures. For example, in many ILS approaches, to fly the complete approach you will need an ADF receiver.

An IFR GPS receiver can be used to substitute for both ADF and DME. The GPS database simply contains the latitude and longitude of the ground station. The ADF or DME location can then be used as a point to navigate to in the GPS. So one piece of modern hardware can substitute for 2 others.

You don't need an SL30 if you get a 430. Many folks use the 430 as the primary nav/com radio and then get an SL30 as a second.
 
You might be doing it....

terrykohler said:
Breister:
One last note: You will NOT be legal to navigate point to point in IFR using the 296. The SL 30 (or MGL, if it qualifies) will only allow you to fly airways, etc.

Not true. My 9A is equipped with an SL40, Val VOR/LOC, and a garmin 196. It is, what Paul refers to as, "IFR Lite". In today's environment, there are very few places where you can't navigate direct. When I file, I list "VFR GPS on board" in the remarks section. In nearly every case, before I reach my initial cruise altitude, ATC tells me "proceed direct". While so navigating, I continually pick out VORs in front of or behind me. This way, if I lose GPS signal, I can request amended clearance. If I lose the Val, the scenario becomes a little more complex, depending upon weather. The important thing is not to hesitate to advise ATC of the situation.
Terry, CFI
RV9A, N323TP
Click to expand...

....but, it is NOT legal to accept a clearance that you don't have the required IFR certified equipment on board to fly that clearance. A hand held "VFR GPS" may only be used in the IFR environment as an aid to situational awareness. ATC will allow you to go direct via your "VFR GPS" cause it isn't their ticket on the line!:rolleyes:

Sorry for the thread drift
 
Last edited:
terrykohler said:
Breister:
One last note: You will NOT be legal to navigate point to point in IFR using the 296. The SL 30 (or MGL, if it qualifies) will only allow you to fly airways, etc.

Not true. My 9A is equipped with an SL40, Val VOR/LOC, and a garmin 196. It is, what Paul refers to as, "IFR Lite". In today's environment, there are very few places where you can't navigate direct. When I file, I list "VFR GPS on board" in the remarks section. In nearly every case, before I reach my initial cruise altitude, ATC tells me "proceed direct". While so navigating, I continually pick out VORs in front of or behind me. This way, if I lose GPS signal, I can request amended clearance. If I lose the Val, the scenario becomes a little more complex, depending upon weather. The important thing is not to hesitate to advise ATC of the situation.
Terry, CFI
RV9A, N323TP
Click to expand...

I didn't say people don't do it all the time, nor did I say that ATC doesn't actively look the other way. I said that it is not legal, which it is not unless you have something like an ARNAV unit which computes courses based on calculated VOR cross-referencing. That means you cannot file direct. You can FLY direct if ATC approves it, but you are really flying a heading and they have tacitly allowed you leeway to deviate from a 5 NM corridor when they allow this knowing you don't have ARNAV or an IFR GPS.

And it is possible that the regs have changed and I haven't heard about it, although I don't think that any reg allows VFR equipment to be used IFR.

To some people this is a nit and does not matter. To others it is important. Caveat Emptor.
 
akschu said:
N941WR, good eye, those aren't FAA requirement, but they are my requirements.

Webb, good suggestion.

I would really like to stay under $12k if that is even possible. Doesn't sound like it with the IFR GPS burning $8k of it.

Aircraft spruce has a package where they sell:
Dynon 180
HSI module
GNS 430w
GTX327 transponder

for $13279

But even then, I don't know if that would do what I need. I can add an SL30 for another $3500 and then I would have everything that was recommended, but no fault tolerance except for the handheld GPS and a second radio and I'm up to $17k.

It's just not looking like it's in the cards. What about used gear? Can I trust it?

Thanks,
schu
Click to expand...

Try here. Garmin 300XL IFR GPS Comm for $3,200 - around the same price as the SL30. Ditch the SL30; you aren't really planning on hard IFR anyway, and you can shoot nonprecision approaches all day long with the 300XL. Your Dynon D180 plus backup battery plus heated pitot (about $4,000) gives you everything else you need in your panel except transponder (it even provides altitude encoding) and intercom ($300 for a Sigtronics). So, you have EVERYTHING you need for under $7,500, except you can't shoot ILS approaches. Ranier will help you out there with a Nav radio for about $600 in the next few months.

Pretty much the same deal with the MGL unit, and that includes moving map / 3d view ahead so you may not even feel you need the Garmin 296. A second EFIS with battery backup gives you full redundancy (no need for dual electric systems, you already have alternator plus battery plus backup batteries).

The final advantage here is that it future-proofs your plane. Each of the common EFIS units today is software driven, and will continue to improve.

Cheers,

Bill
 
That is a good option, but I wonder how much I'll loose now and 10 years down the road if I don't have a WAAS GPS. Any IFR pilots want to comment on exactly how much I'll be limiting myself not having a WAAS GPS?
 
Altitude

Most of your ideas have been sufficiently hashed out with excellent discussions and advice. I only have one thing I'd add regarding use of the 296 (or even a 430, for that matter). You mentioned that you might look at it for a backup altitude source but I'd recommend against it. Keep an eye on the readout and compare it to your actual altitude in VFR conditions. While there are stretches they will be surprisingly accurate, there will also be lots of time they are way off. You'd want much more reliability and accuracy in the IFR environment. The good news is, a standard altimeter is typically very reliable.

Here in KS, it would probably keep you out of the dirt while you find an ILS but I'd hate to rely on it over rocks of any size. If VFR conditions couldn't be reached, I'd finish the trip with an ILS to the pavement no matter what the conditions...no missed approach without good altitude info as it would be riskier than taking the ILS below minimums. Just my $.02
 
Last edited:
10 Years?

akschu said:
That is a good option, but I wonder how much I'll loose now and 10 years down the road if I don't have a WAAS GPS. Any IFR pilots want to comment on exactly how much I'll be limiting myself not having a WAAS GPS?
Click to expand...

As Paul said, it is about the mission. There are now more WAAS approaches in the US than there are ILS procedures. Clearly, it is the future, more so if you are using remote airports. Ten years is a long way out when discussing avionics development. In ten years we will probably be lusting after something we don't even know about yet.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Doing instrument training in your own bird will save you $4K on rentals, plus you'll be very well trained with your plane/panel.

My vote for minimum IFR has nothing to do with regs:
- Garmin GNS430W (for reasons Paul mentions in terms of opening door to max approaches. Plus future buyer will see this as plus.)
- Auto pilot
- Heading bug.
 
Training?

breister said:
Garmin 300XL IFR GPS Comm for $3,200 - around the same price as the SL30. Ditch the SL30; you aren't really planning on hard IFR anyway, and you can shoot nonprecision approaches all day long with the 300XL.

<snip>

A second EFIS with battery backup gives you full redundancy (no need for dual electric systems, you already have alternator plus battery plus backup batteries).
Click to expand...

My thinking was very similar, but I'd make two suggestions:

1. Go with a 430. WAAS would be best, but no absolute need if you can get an older one cheaper. The VOR/ILS is needed if you're going to train in this plane, and I got the idea you were.

2. Get a two-axis autopilot as backup instead of a second EFIS. I am going that way, plus a Garmin 496 as 3rd backup (that is battery driven). There are many who believe that with training it is plenty sufficient for you to stay right side up through a layer.

That BTW is my definition of IFR Lite: planning for IFR to penetrate a layer up or down but being prepared, equipment/training/currency-wise, for enroute IFR and approaches to your personal minimums. In the end, equipment for IFR Lite is quite close to what I'd want for IFR Heavy, perhaps with a little less redundancy and for me, minus the pitot heat. Fact is, for IFR Heavy I want a different airplane with another engine and known-icing capability.

I've been through this same set of decisions so I'm sympathetic. With IFR equipment, I think there is some benefit to following the herd and choosing popular, mainstream equipment, especially if you plan to do your training in your plane.

Hope this helps.

George
 
akschu said:
That is a good option, but I wonder how much I'll loose now and 10 years down the road if I don't have a WAAS GPS. Any IFR pilots want to comment on exactly how much I'll be limiting myself not having a WAAS GPS?
Click to expand...

In 10 years Garmin may have a plug-in WAAS replacement for, or upgrade to, the 300XL.

Don't kick yourself double-thinking the options. If you want minimal IFR now for the best price, just do it and add on later if your mission demands it.
 
grjtucson said:
My thinking was very similar, but I'd make two suggestions:

1. Go with a 430. WAAS would be best, but no absolute need if you can get an older one cheaper. The VOR/ILS is needed if you're going to train in this plane, and I got the idea you were.
Click to expand...

Does that still hold true? I thought you only had to qualify with the instruments installed in the aircraft (e.g. no ADF approaches if you didn't have ADF installed, ditto for ILS; DME; etc.). Thus, if he trained in his own plane he wouldn't need to do VOR stuff at all.

Alternatively (and if I am incorrect about the above assumption), as I mentioned before he can get the MGL Nav-only radio at a later time for only around $600. That compares quite favorably to the SL30 at $3400, and I think Ranier said he intended to include Marker Beacon Receiver in it.

Get a two-axis autopilot as backup instead of a second EFIS. I am going that way, plus a Garmin 496 as 3rd backup (that is battery driven). There are many who believe that with training it is plenty sufficient for you to stay right side up through a layer.
Click to expand...

That is what I have (a TruTrack autopilot). However, if he is looking at minimum investment now "with a growth path," then for about the same money he can add a Dynon D10A plus servos later, in any order he wants.
 
breister said:
Does that still hold true? I thought you only had to qualify with the instruments installed in the aircraft (e.g. no ADF approaches if you didn't have ADF installed, ditto for ILS; DME; etc.). Thus, if he trained in his own plane he wouldn't need to do VOR stuff at all.

.
Click to expand...

I believe that you still have to be able to demonstrate three different types of approaches during the practical exam, so if you just show up with a GPS, and nothing else, you might not be able to "qualify" for the checkride.
 
To WAAS or not to WAAS

A WAAS unit is considered a stand alone unit (must be panel mount). In the event that you have to shoot the alternate approach, it is legal for shooting more than a LNAV approach and for the alternate. It can shoot the LP, LPV, and LNAV/VNAV. A Garmin 430W will accomplish this.

A non-WAAS unit cannot legally be used for the alternate (if you want a GPS approach) because it cannot shoot more than the LNAV. You will need a backup such as an ILS for the approach. A Garmin 430 (so will a 430W) will do this with an external CDI. This means your alternate choice will not be the GPS approach.

Isn't planning fun. So many choices.
 
Last edited:
FAA-S-8081-4D

This is from the latest IFR practical.
"Flight instruments are those required for controlling the aircraft without outside references. The required radio equipment is that which is necessary for communications with ATC, and for the performance of two of the following nonprecision approaches: VOR, NDB, GPS, LOC, LDA, SDF, or RNAV and one precision approach: ILS, GLS, or MLS. GPS equipment must be instrument certified and contain the current database. Note: APV approaches may be substituted only for nonprecision approaches in this standard. An APV approach shall not be used in lieu of the required precision approach."
 
No handheld GPS is approved for IFR. You may use them for situational awareness and VFR use.

Get the IFR training and maintain proficiency. It will allow you to complete many more trips. Just be careful flying approaches to minimums. Weather can often be very patchy. Frequently the next airport over will be VFR so why fly to minimums as single pilot IFR.

While an IFR equipped plane will be legal to fly to minimums, especially early on, you should adhere to some personal minimums to give you more margin of safety. If you think you are as good as your instructor, you may need another instructor but you probably won't live long.

There are old pilots, bold pilots, but not many old bold pilots.

I am twin instrument rated, helicopter rated, but love my RV!
 
skidoc said:
No handheld GPS is approved for IFR. You may use them for situational awareness and VFR use.

Get the IFR training and maintain proficiency. It will allow you to complete many more trips. Just be careful flying approaches to minimums. Weather can often be very patchy. Frequently the next airport over will be VFR so why fly to minimums as single pilot IFR.

While an IFR equipped plane will be legal to fly to minimums, especially early on, you should adhere to some personal minimums to give you more margin of safety. If you think you are as good as your instructor, you may need another instructor but you probably won't live long.

There are old pilots, bold pilots, but not many old bold pilots.

I am twin instrument rated, helicopter rated, but love my RV!
Click to expand...
Skidoc,

I agree with you on the handheld GPS, but what do you mean "be careful flying approaches to minimums?"

Let say a procedure has a minimum of 400 feet and the reported weather is 500 feet;
Are you recommending NOT flying that approach?
Or are you recommending flying the approach to a partial minimum of say 5-600 feet?
What is the issue with flying to the minimums as published?

If a procedure has a published minimum of 400 feet, is it not safer to fly to the published minimum of 400 feet, rather than flying to say 500 feet, going missed then diverting to some alternate? I never understood the concept of "going missed early" because of some "personal minimum" when the procedure should be flown AS PUBLISHED. Then if you don't see the runway, go missed AS PUBLISHED and then divert. Personal minimums are good in most other areas of aviation but I think they are mis-applied with approaches. ALL approaches are to be flown "carefully" but I don't understand not flying the approach, FULLY, as published as long as the parameters are not exceeded.
 
Please stop and return to 1st post

Please don't let this thread turn into a debate of how to fly IFR. Up to now, it's been interesting where folks would spend theirs (or more easily) someone else's money (LOL) when it comes to needs vs wants vs must haves.

It is a great soapbox to suggest what the builder (or you) should/would put in his/your panel for learning and flying IFR with moderate resources.

*************************************************

IMO, the first dollar you should spend is on a groundschool book on IFR such as GLEIM or SPORTYS. Once you have read it, all this will make a lot more sense because right now, all the info you are reading are facts and/or biased opinions. If you are feeling really rich, pick up the video course from KING or SPORTYS. John and Martha are a bit syrupy sweet and Richard Collins is a bit dry but both will teach you a great deal and you will more understand what you need/want and will be that much closer to your instrument ticket.

A better understanding will help to prevent buyers remorse.
 
Last edited:
I think the point about personal minimums has nothing to do with flying the approach as published. It has to do with selecting to fly to an airport that is reporting weather at minimums in the first place. Select airpports to fly to based on your comfort level, experience and maybe some personal minimum criteria.
 
Ironflight said:
I believe that you still have to be able to demonstrate three different types of approaches during the practical exam, so if you just show up with a GPS, and nothing else, you might not be able to "qualify" for the checkride.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course you are right! I forgot that part...

:eek:

Then by all means add a VOR/ILS. You will still save nearly $6,000 using the 300XL/ MGL NAV vs buying a 430.

For the other fellow - I agree the 430 is a better all-around; I was just factoring in his budget and immediate goals.
 
There have been some interesting and well placed truth's spoken here (Webb, Stephen, Bill, Paul, etc..)! That being said, there is a point where I see this teetering on the verge of the old pennywise/dollar foolish thing. If you want the airplane to do a certain thing (in this case IFR work), then it really should have the appropriate equipment. Trying to do something like create an IFR bird at VFR prices at the absolute bare bottom works sometimes/kind/sorta, but most of the time ends up as folly down the road from a good reliable, safe, and functional standpoint. In this case, the 300XL is OK but certainly not a great use of $$'s given where the world is going for IFR. Everybody starts out with a certain budget or bucket they have to build the airplane by. It's how you ration out that bucket of money to make the best use of each of those $$'s that really, really matters.

I guess I'd say the same thing I tell many of my friends and customers. If you want to make it IFR, then do it...don't try to make it "almost" because I can guarantee you 100% you'll kick yourself later. I'm not an advocate of wasting money, just doing things right. If you truly can't afford to make the plane how you will want it to perform, then do the best you can. It's just most all of the time people look back and wish they'd have done what they wanted to do with the plane....even if it cost a few extra pennies. I don't think I've ever heard people come back after the plane is flying and tell me "boy I'm upset that I purchased the better equipment", but I almost weekly hear "jeez I wish I would have just bought that thing to begin with...will you take my other stuff back in on trade and sell me that other unit"?!?!

Sometimes people don't know the questions to ask, hence all the good advice I've seen on these forums. And also, don't be afraid that we'll look down on a Bearhawk builder....lots of RV guys are building Bearhawks, and lots of us have our eyes on that plane! :)

My 2 cents again!

Cheers,
Stein.

PS, I'm glad to see that most are over that ludicrous and dubious notion I've seen as of late that handheld GPSes are ok for IFR work!
 
Last edited:
Stein,

Good post. I agree that most people save a penny and spend a dollar so there is a lot of wisdom in what you say. There are a lot of other people, however, that think that the fact that it flies through the air warrants spending an absurd amounts of money on stuff that they don't need that adds complexity and weight.

I'm looking for the best bang for the buck. Something that will do what I need and do it well but probably well shy of a G1000 setup. I'm willing to part with the money for what I need and perhaps want, but nothing more.

That said, I'm evaluating the price difference between a VFR and IFR panel because I would like to get my IFR ticket and it makes more sense to pump that money into my own panel instead of a rental. Trying to determine the price difference is complex because I don't know anything about IFR, and there are so many different setups to choose from. Another factor is the redundancy. Some people absolutely insist on having 2 of everything and they are willing to part with $50k for it. I don't have that kind of money so I'm trying to sort out what will work.

At this point I figure that IFR is going to cost me $8k since that is the price of the 430W. I am already planning an EFIS, SL30, GTX327, and 296GPS so I figure adding a 430W to it will give me the ability to fly all of the different approaches.

Now the questions:

1. Is that IFR panel complete enough to carry me into the future?
2. Is that IFR panel safe?
3. Can I build my VFR panel now and add the 430W later?
4. Is there anyway to buy a 430W or equivalent for less than $8k?

Thanks to everyone that has offered their opinions, this has been very educational.

schu
 
300XL vs 430

breister said:
Then by all means add a VOR/ILS. You will still save nearly $6,000 using the 300XL/ MGL NAV vs buying a 430.
Click to expand...

DID you mean spend nearly $6,000??
The 300XL is about $3000 without an indicator.
To add VOR/ ILS in addition to the 300XL is what, another $2,000 at least?
I have lived this debat by purchasing the 300XL knowing the primary mission is VFR for our RV6a. Only for IFR climbs to VFR on top or decents to VFR is the mission. If the mission is then true IFR with GPS and ILS, VOR-A approaches, The 430 is the way to go....FWIW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top