Garmin 396 Announced - Page 2

Scott DellAngelo · #11 07-07-2005, 11:12 AM

True, you don't need TSO'ed, EXCEPT with GPS.

Scott

ddurakovich · #12 07-07-2005, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RatMan

Just wondering, why can't you use them "legally" and why would you want "certified"?

The reason I ask, the process of getting something "certified" (or TSO'ed) is expensive and adds a lot to the price but actually does nothing for the instrument. It may make you feel more confident in the instrument but that's just a feeling and again, does nothing for the instrument.

The instrumentation I have seen in some RV's is actually much better than I have seen in a number of old "IFR certified" C-172s yet these instruments aren't TSO'ed, cost much less and provide better information to the pilot.

I'm not flaming you, just trying to illustrate a point. These aren't traditional certified airplanes, there is no requirement (except maybe a personal choice) for TSO'ed instruments. A lot of builders fly behind experimental engines and trust them, is there really any reason not to fly behind non-TSO'ed instruments and trust them as well?

Rat

Not feeling any flames, not to worry!

I am using non-TSO'd gyros (some people will say I'm crazy to take that chance), gauges, as well as an engine that, although I've used all 'approved parts', I built it up myself so it is considered experimental.

Not a matter of TSO'd or certified, per se. I was referring specifically to the use of equipment during IFR flights. No handheld GPS is approved. Most panel mounts are not either. There is a specific certification/installation to have a "legal" GPS for Instrument flight.

My issue is more with the "appropriateness" of a piece of equipment for the mission. Lycoming engines are the oldest, most primative technology you can imagine, so why are they still in use? Because they're virtually bullet proof. A certified GPS has at least gone through a process that should indicate a level of certainty as to reliability, accuracy and legality for use. Is newer handheld technology better? Probably. Can you be sure it will meet the above three criteria? And trust your life and those of your friends and family to it?

Again, my entire point was for a specific use not even endorsed by the manufacturer. Will people use it for those 'other' purposes? You know they will. It's human nature, and it's there in front of you.

I would have absolutely no reservations about (and regularly do, in fact) climbing into the cockpit of an airplane equipped ONLY with an ASI, altimeter, compass and T&B for typical VFR flight. How many RV builders out there won't consider flying without an AOA or stall warning alert? Would I install a Dynon or other EFIS? Probably, I love cool toys to! Would I be satisfied with a Dynon, GRT or Blue Mountain for IFR flight? Not yet. Not enough experience or history, and in my mind, not suitable for the mission. At least not yet.

And when I see technology of such a high end nature that it's intended use (at least by the manufacturers suggestions) is to basically confirm what you should already be able to identify by looking out the window, I get concerned that it will become a "primary" instrument rather than an aid to situational awareness. Used properly, it's a way cool toy, but there are other 'toys' I need (WANT!) that will give me more bang for my bucks.

Jamie · #13 07-07-2005, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott DellAngelo

This thing is a serious chunk of change. Now I will have to decide whether the 296 or 396, but with the 396 you get to pay $75 startup fee plus $30 or $50 per month to use it (cost of XM weather subscription). From what I can see the 396 is identical to the 296 with XM added???

I plan to fly IFR but I don't know if it is really worth spending $1000 more for the GPS plus $30 a month to have weather. That buys a bunch of gas and I figure my plane will be used IFR (actual) relatively little.

Hmmm....

Scott

The other difference I see with the 396 is that it can be used for TIS when coupled with the GTX-330. It will also send freq's to the SL-30 NAV/COM. As far as I know, the 296 does not have this capability. I'm assuming that Garmin will provide some sort of quick connect that can be wired into the panel....should be interesting to say the least...

RatMan · #14 07-07-2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott DellAngelo

True, you don't need TSO'ed, EXCEPT with GPS.

Scott

If you could point me in the direction of where you found a GPS has to be TSO'ed to be used in a homebuilt, I would really appreciate it.

Rat

RatMan · #15 07-07-2005, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddurakovich

My issue is more with the "appropriateness" of a piece of equipment for the mission.

We're on the same page then Dave, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's smart and I agree with you. Just seems to be a lot of people thinking they have to use specific instruments because of a piece of paper a company holds. Just not true. I appreciate the companies out there developing the affordable toys we have, some of them will eventually be TSO'ed and they will then command a much higher price for the same equipment.

Besides, most RV builders have much more than just what's required whether it be VFR or IFR, most are equipt very nicely indeed.

Rat

ddurakovich · #16 07-07-2005, 02:16 PM

The trouble with technology (coming from a man who has had as many as three networks and two workstations going simultaneously in a 1 bedroom apartment, with NO internet connection, just for the heck of it) is that many people perceive complexity, ease of use, and reliability to be proportional to cost. Hence, the $2695 handheld GPS/XM radio/NEXRAD weather/Margarita maker (OK, maybe too much!) is such a bargain it should be a snap to use, completely reliable, and require little or no training to use to it's fullest extent! A recipe for disaster!

On the other hand, when you plop down $15K for that panel mount unit, you better buy the simulator and spend some time working on it because......

I fully subscribe to the theory that he/she with the most toys when they die wins! I'm truly saddened by the realization that it won't be me!

RatMan · #17 07-07-2005, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddurakovich

The trouble with technology (coming from a man who has had as many as three networks and two workstations going simultaneously in a 1 bedroom apartment, with NO internet connection, just for the heck of it) is that many people perceive complexity, ease of use, and reliability to be proportional to cost. Hence, the $2695 handheld GPS/XM radio/NEXRAD weather/Margarita maker (OK, maybe too much!) is such a bargain it should be a snap to use, completely reliable, and require little or no training to use to it's fullest extent! A recipe for disaster!

Hmmm... Well that school of thought did make Bill Gates a bizilionaire didn't it. I don't mind people thinking that either, it's kept me in a job for most of my adult life. Also proves your point well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddurakovich

I fully subscribe to the theory that he/she with the most toys when they die wins! I'm truly saddened by the realization that it won't be me!

But we won't come in last!

Rat

Scott DellAngelo · #18 07-08-2005, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RatMan

If you could point me in the direction of where you found a GPS has to be TSO'ed to be used in a homebuilt, I would really appreciate it.

Rat

I can only find lots of references to TSO 129 (a1) and (a2) for anything to do with IFR GPS. Nothing comes even remotely close to saying a handheld and IFR legal anywhere near the same paragraph. It seems as though even the antenna needs to be TSO'ed on IFR legal GPS installations.

ddurakovich · #19 07-08-2005, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott DellAngelo

I can only find lots of references to TSO 129 (a1) and (a2) for anything to do with IFR GPS. Nothing comes even remotely close to saying a handheld and IFR legal anywhere near the same paragraph. It seems as though even the antenna needs to be TSO'ed on IFR legal GPS installations.

Been awhile since I read them that closely, but as I recall they need to 'meet the standards' of the respective TSO. A subtle difference.

However, it's fairly easy to see that a handheld won't meet those standards!

Highflight · #20 07-08-2005, 09:42 AM

You nailed it Dave. While equipment in an Experimental doesn't have to actually BE a TSO unit, it DOES have to meet all requirements that are put forth and are met BY a TSO'd unit.

The absence of RAIM alone precludes any portable from being used as an IFR GPS, and there are also annunciation requirements... and other stuff as well (but again, no RAIM means no portable GPS can be used for IFR GPS flight).

On the other hand, a person could have one heckuva inexpensive IFR aircraft with an SL-30 driving a proper CDI as your legal IFR equipment. You could then legally use the non-IFR GPS as guidance on IFR flights as long as you didn't file and fly a GPS IFR flightplan that depended upon GPS guidance, and as long as your SL-30 took precedence over the GPS in the event of conflicting information.

Not to sound condescending here, but in the event I'm killed in a midair by a person flying IFR using a portable GPS receiver for guidance, I'm hoping my survivors sue their survivors for every penny they might make in the next 100 years.