Garmin 396 Announced - Page 3

ddurakovich · #21 07-08-2005, 10:11 AM

While I had a panel mount KLN-90A in my Cherokee, I never had it certified, and never filed /G. I usually always did note "VFR GPS" in the comments of my IFR flight plan, and seldom failed to get a "direct" routing at some point during the flight.

Almost always VMC, and I believe ALWAYS in radar coverage.

There's a lot that can be legally done with a VFR GPS. My concern has always been that people believe that they're just as good as IFR units, and attempt to use them that way.

I'm off my soapbox, done with this thread!

Scott DellAngelo · #22 07-08-2005, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highflight

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.

That's what I am doing. SL30 and Mid continent CDI, panel mounted handheld for "guidance". Now to decide between the 296 and 396. An extra $1000 plus $30 or $50 per month, I am not sure if it's THAT much nicer to me personally.

The second comment I completely disagree with. Lawsuits and the like are the reason why we all cannot be out buying new Cessna's and Piper's for 1/5th the cost (or less). Or buy brand new lycoming engines for probably $4000. IF you have a midair and the other guy is using a handheld I highly doubt the handheld has anything to do with it. Besides with the 396 and a 330 transponder the guy with the handheld might know you're there.

Scott

mburch · #23 07-08-2005, 12:35 PM

FYI, Garmin has made the manuals for the 396 available on their website:

http://www.garmin.com/products/manua...t=010-00425-00

mcb

RatMan · #24 07-08-2005, 06:26 PM

I think some may have misunderstood my comments and I may have even ruffled some feathers and I certainly didn't intend to do that. I was only pointing out that instruments used in an experimental airplane do not have to be TSO'ed. Because of this you can purchase and use instruments that are just as good or even better in some cases than those that are said to be "certified".

I didn't mean to imply that a portable GPS should be used for IFR. Only to point out that it doesn't need to be TSO'ed to be used in general. Even if you purchased the best, most expensive GPS available, if you installed it yourself the installation would still have to be done in accordance with AC 20-138 or AC 20-130A. Even then, your homebuilt wouldn't be any more "certified" than one using the minimum required. Safer? Probably. Depends on the guy holding the stick.

Now I suppose there is an argument to be made that having any GPS is better than not having one. If your plane has proper instrumentation for IFR and you have a VFR GPS as well, would you use it? I've seen more than a few C-172's with yoke mounted GPS's but I've never asked if they turn them off when they get in the clouds.

As far as lawsuits are concerned, if I die doing what I love I hope my family celebrates that fact. I wouldn't want anyone else to suffer because of it. There's already enough of that in this world.

Rat