I'm still a long way off from having the need to plan for avionics (not to mention the market may look completely different by the time I get there), but I'm a little confused as to some aspects of using a homespun glass cockpit for a GPS approach. I'm trying to get a clearer picture of the use case so forgive me if I just regurgitate my thoughts all over the place
I have the understanding that you can't legally IFR navigate nor fly approaches via GPS unless it's a TSO'd unit like an IFD/GTN/KSN770, etc. If I was sitting behind a Skyview HDX, I can hook these devices together to get helpful features like an HSI on the PFD...but I still can't legally use the Skyview for enroute/approach (I'd have to be looking at the TSO'd unit). Without any backup IFR instruments to navigate, what would be the purpose of loading in an approach plate into the Skyview if it's presumably already loaded up on the GPS MFD? A lot of the user panels I'm seeing in various galleries seem to be going all in on an GPS IFR setup without any other way to perform an approach.
I was thinking of possibly using a KSN770 to take advantage of my existing Seattle Avionics chart subscription, with the understanding that I'll need to subscribe for nav/obstacle/terrain data through Wingman (which is sourced form Jeppesen?). It seems to me with my shallow understanding that having Skyview HDX + KSN770 would make the most sense considering the resources I have. On the other hand, I like the IFD interface from what little I've played with it and I've been reading that future support for the KSN is looking pretty shaky. Of course, going with an IFD unit would mean I'm on the hook for a Jeppesen subscription of 1k+ per year to stay legal (though there was someone on the forum who chose to only subscribe for navdata, while using the Skyview for obstacle/terrain - does this work out pretty well?).
What would be a good way to work out a system with the right amount of tradeoffs? I like the IFD but it's pricier for initial cost and data. I wouldn't mind the KSN but it seems to be fairly dated compared to other current offerings and future support is questionable. Or am I approaching this with the wrong perspective?
I have the understanding that you can't legally IFR navigate nor fly approaches via GPS unless it's a TSO'd unit like an IFD/GTN/KSN770, etc. If I was sitting behind a Skyview HDX, I can hook these devices together to get helpful features like an HSI on the PFD...but I still can't legally use the Skyview for enroute/approach (I'd have to be looking at the TSO'd unit). Without any backup IFR instruments to navigate, what would be the purpose of loading in an approach plate into the Skyview if it's presumably already loaded up on the GPS MFD? A lot of the user panels I'm seeing in various galleries seem to be going all in on an GPS IFR setup without any other way to perform an approach.
I was thinking of possibly using a KSN770 to take advantage of my existing Seattle Avionics chart subscription, with the understanding that I'll need to subscribe for nav/obstacle/terrain data through Wingman (which is sourced form Jeppesen?). It seems to me with my shallow understanding that having Skyview HDX + KSN770 would make the most sense considering the resources I have. On the other hand, I like the IFD interface from what little I've played with it and I've been reading that future support for the KSN is looking pretty shaky. Of course, going with an IFD unit would mean I'm on the hook for a Jeppesen subscription of 1k+ per year to stay legal (though there was someone on the forum who chose to only subscribe for navdata, while using the Skyview for obstacle/terrain - does this work out pretty well?).
What would be a good way to work out a system with the right amount of tradeoffs? I like the IFD but it's pricier for initial cost and data. I wouldn't mind the KSN but it seems to be fairly dated compared to other current offerings and future support is questionable. Or am I approaching this with the wrong perspective?