Shortest distance to IFR capable plane

Bubblehead · #1 03-27-2010, 10:00 AM

My -8 has a standard 6-pack of instruments, a King KT-76A Transponder and KY-97 comm radio, and use a 496 for nav, weather and XM radio. I have flown it just about everywhere east of the Rockies and some west of the Rockies and generally get to where I need to go despite occasional weather woes. Last year I had to stay over one night because of weather.

This last week I ended up staying in Pascagoula, MS for two extra days due to low ceilings and sometimes low viz.

So given my 6-pack and vacuum system and existing comm and transponder and VFR GPS, what would I need to add for the minimum cost to safely and legally fly en route IFR and transition through cloud layers?

I know that some would say that if you don't go all the way with 430W and be able to do all the approaches etc etc you're just asking for trouble, but I don't buy it. Why is having no IMC capability better than having limited but useful IMC capability?

Think - shortest, cheapest distance between two points! I cannot spend the money right now for a full setup so help me get the most bang for my buck.

RONSIM · #2 03-27-2010, 11:09 AM

You must have equipment that will allow you to use the navigation facilities applicable for your flight ---- minimum would be a Narco Nav 122 (strictly VOR/LOC/ILS), OR a Nav/Comm like a King KX 155, preferable with glideslope, which would give you the extra comm capability. You may not be able to do some approaches that require additional capability like DME (I know, cheat with the 496) or some means to identify a published fix or markers.

In addition, your pitot/static/transponder/altimeter system would have to meet the IFR calibration standards every 24 months.

Bubblehead · #3 03-27-2010, 11:30 AM

That's a good start. I'd need a nav indicator too. I'd forgotten about the pitot static part.

I've heard conflicting stories on using a VFR GPS for locating fixes like the OM etc. My super-pilot CFII sister says it's legal. That would be great because I would not need a marker beacon receiver and ADF.

More opinioins? Beware of mission creep!

(Stein, Jay Pratt - now's the time to make me an offer I cannot refuse!")

9GT · #4 03-27-2010, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead

That's a good start. I'd need a nav indicator too. I'd forgotten about the pitot static part.

I've heard conflicting stories on using a VFR GPS for locating fixes like the OM etc. My super-pilot CFII sister says it's legal. That would be great because I would not need a marker beacon receiver and ADF.

More opinioins? Beware of mission creep!

(Stein, Jay Pratt - now's the time to make me an offer I cannot refuse!")

We were just talking about hand held and non IFR certified GPS units for IFR approaches last week in my Instrument ground school. My understanding is that you must have the required approved navigation equipment to legally fly the approach and if its not an IFR certified GPS with a current up to date database,,,it will not pass legal muster.

Bubblehead · #5 03-27-2010, 12:03 PM

Thanks "GT"

Here's one short way to get part way there.

"VAL AVIONICS NAV INS 429 WITH VOR/LOC/GS/MB" http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo.../valINS429.php

Here's the desciption from ACS: "The INS 429 is a high quality, multi-function, fully integrated navigational instrument displaying VOR, LOC, Glide Scope, Marker Beacon, and GPS/NAV inputs. Not only does it sport its own internal receivers, it will also display course deviation information from an external NAV or GPS source. A perfect solution for a crowded panel. Not TSO'D (for experimental aircraft only)."

Does anyone have any experience with these?

dealfair · #6 03-27-2010, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead

Here's the desciption from ACS: "The INS 429 is a high quality, multi-function, fully integrated navigational instrument displaying VOR, LOC, Glide Scope, Marker Beacon, and GPS/NAV inputs. Not only does it sport its own internal receivers, it will also display course deviation information from an external NAV or GPS source. A perfect solution for a crowded panel. Not TSO'D (for experimental aircraft only)."

I'm learning here too; but doesn't the instrument have to be TSO'D to be "legal" ????

Deal Fair

RONSIM · #7 03-27-2010, 04:17 PM

TSO compliance gives you some assurance the unit meets specific standards , but is not a requirement

videobobk · #8 03-27-2010, 05:30 PM

I have a little experience with the VAL 429, and I like it. Right now it is at Stein's so he can wire a 430W into it and it becomes the CDI for the 430. I have had it for a couple of years and it works well and (IMHO) is a better buy than the 422 Narco. It takes a little getting used to when you have watched needles all your life (it has a row of LEDs horizontal and vertical.) It seems sensitive enough and certainly reliable. Cheaper, too. BTW, I thought they were getting it TSO'd. Must not have happened...

Bob Kelly

fehdxl · #9 03-27-2010, 06:44 PM

Maybe you don't need anything additional...

14 CFR say's this: 91.205 (d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required: (2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.

What if the only ground facility intended to be used is approach radar via radar vectors?

Here's the scenario: the weather in KS is 1,000 AGL overcast and the layer is 3,000 feet thick with clear above. I want to get on top and head to Olney TX for a fly-in/Air Tractor tour. As soon as I cross the KS/OK border the sky is clear. I'll opine that I can depart & climb using radar vectors to at least 1,000 feet above the tops then I cancel IFR and proceed under VFR.

Let's not turn this thread into a discussion about VFR on-top or if approach radar is a ground facility. John asked what he needed to "transition through cloud layers" ... my input is that maybe he needs no additional equipment.

-Jim

Flflyer · #10 03-27-2010, 11:03 PM

A used Collins VIR-351 nav receiver for 100-200 dollars. They are all 14volt, and have a to/from radial indication built in, so you could theoretically do a VOR approach somewhere near your destination if a contact approach or visual approach is not possible. I think most would use a 496 as the actual reference in any case, but the VOR onboard seems to me to make it legal, as long as you could file to an airport that had good enough weather for a contact approach, or reach one that has a VOR approach. I believe that it will send a LOC signal to something like a Dynon 100, but am not sure if it needs a resolver. Adding a separate VOR indicator will likely triple the cost, but would open up LOC approaches, if it doesn't interface easily with our typical Dynon units.

I'm in total agreement with you. I've flown IFR for 3.5 decades, and we really did used to do it with one vor and no transponder, never dreaming of the ease and safety that these handheld GPS's now give. There are plenty of times that simply going IFR is a relief, just to stop worrying about cloud layers enroute, while decent or MVFR weather prevails at your destination. I am intrigued by the argument that Precision Approach Radar could be a legal justification for going 'as is', but the FAA does scare me enough to want to put in a VOR, at least. I've also had panels that were state of the art, (yes, back in the older days) that could never provide the safety of a couple of cheap handhelds with their own built in antennas and battery backups as well as graphic moving maps, etc. Loss of situational awareness seems almost impossible with a typical handheld these days, and that's a big step forward.