W

woodsideraff

Well Known Member
I've been considering not having VOR/ILS capability in my RV-7A project, relying only on GPS navigation. "Googling" on the subject, gets me to the EAA statement quoting FAR 91.205 (d) (2), stating the instruments and equipment required for IFR flight. "Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used." This clearly requires VOR nav equipment.

I decided to check the FAA website. To my surprise, the new FAR 91.205 (d) (2) reads as follows: "Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown." Notice that the requirement for use of ground facilities is no longer stated. Unless I'm missing something, this means that one can legally fly IFR with an IFR certified receiver (e.g. GNS 430W) and no VOR equipment.

I've also checked the FAA site and found a great number of GPS LVP approaches.

Any comments would be appreciated.

Cheers,

Rafael

RV7-A, just finishing the wings of my Quickbuild.
 
VHF Nav

Rafael:
First, a GNS 430W has VOR/ILS and glideslope receivers. More to the point of your question, yes, it would be legal to fly IFR with just a GPS if that is all that is needed to complete your mission. In my flying I couldn't get along without an ILS and a glideslope. At many airports the ILS is still the way to get the lowest on approach. Yes, it is old technology, but it is still very much in use. At my home airport the ILS minimums are 200ft, the MDA for the GPS approach is 920ft. Times are changing, take another look when your are a little closer to going flying.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Class B?

? 91.131 Operations in Class B airspace.

<SNIP SNIP SNIP>

(1) For IFR operation. An operable VOR or TACAN receiver or an operable and suitable RNAV system

<SNIP>

It seems like GPS would qualify as a replacement for an RNAV system, but there is such a thing as a VOR/DME based RNAV, so hard to tell if they're requiring ground-based equipment or not. As other poster pointed out, a GNS430 would do the trick.
 
I would not but its a gray area

woodsideraff said:
I've been considering not having VOR/ILS capability in my RV-7A project, relying only on GPS navigation. "Googling" on the subject, gets me to the EAA statement quoting FAR 91.205 (d) (2), stating the instruments and equipment required for IFR flight. "Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used." This clearly requires VOR nav equipment.

I decided to check the FAA website. To my surprise, the new FAR 91.205 (d) (2) reads as follows: "Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown." Notice that the requirement for use of ground facilities is no longer stated. Unless I'm missing something, this means that one can legally fly IFR with an IFR certified receiver (e.g. GNS 430W) and no VOR equipment.

I've also checked the FAA site and found a great number of GPS LVP approaches.

Any comments would be appreciated.

Cheers, Rafael RV7-A, just finishing the wings of my Quickbuild.
Click to expand...
Are you are IFR rated? I'm just asking for a frame of reference. FAR 91.205 (d) (2) is well known but it does not address GPS, since its not ground based, is it. :rolleyes: How can you utilize ground base nav if you have no ground based nav receivers? :eek:

So can you fly with a IFR rated en-route and approach GPS only? Yes with a caveat.

-There are grey areas in the FAR's (ask the FAA yourself, which is best)
-GPS really has not been fully figured into the FAR's yet, there are gaps, things are changing.
-We're experimental, so we get away w/ more than normal cert aircraft.

I believe the answer is NO for cert aircraft, yes for experimental. My research shows it as a gray area.

I would not leave off the VOR, LOC & GS, for many reasons:

-You will have more approaches and back-up
-Ease of en-route or approach NAV, tune freq, ID, select radial and track
-ILS is still the best approach with lowest mins and ease of use. All that's needed is the latest approach plate, no expensive data card update needed.

What if the GPS goes out? That apparently can and has happened. I suppose if in radar coverage you can get vector's and an ASR or PAR approach (talked down).

Bottom line: I would put VOR in at min, but if you are going that far and you're a serious IFR pilot, you're going to fly IFR often, day-night solid IMC, you might as well go all the way, put the VOR/LOC/GS/MB and GPS in. IFR single pilot, single engine is serious business. You need all the help you can get. GPS is nice but work load is not necessarily less. Don't get me wrong I would feel naked with out my VFR Garmin even in VFR conditions. The accurate area nav map display, gnd speed, dist-to & nearest airports is priceless.

The FAA recently tried to KILL a bunch of older IFR GPS (I think it was overturned). With anything software driven, who knows what will be the latest and greatest. VOR/LOC/ILS/MB are still here pretty much as they have been since the 50's. Get a new approach plate, dial and go. It's easy, reliable and safe. You get your clearance and you than program the GPS? OK than they change it and ask you to turn right and intercept a VOR radial. Can the GA GPS be programed by a single pilot on the fly easily. With steam gauges you look at the chart, dial the freq and radial and go. I'm not talking down to you or lecturing you, but I don't know how much actual IFR experience you have. New pilots tend to put a lot of faith in electronics. That is fine, but if you are heads down programing the BOX while you fly into a hill or ground, its not good. In airliners there are two pilots and one and only one programs the BOX while the other flies, than the 2nd pilot checks the modification.

CALL YOUR LOCAL FAA FSDO and confirm what every you hear from me or others. The FAA are the ones that count. If they are not sure call another FSDO. Call another FSDO anyway to confirm the first guess I mean answer. Amazing how many different answers you might get even from the FAA. My opinion is its a gray area not in black and white and FAR's yet. Legal? Not 100%, safety? GPS is great but VOR is VOR, its the back bone of the airway system.

I see the desire to avoid the antennas and coax and drag and weight. Good luck with your decision: Safety, legality, utility and than installation last.
 
Last edited:
Legal is one thing. Smart is another. Sometimes just complying with the bare minimum legal requirements is not enough to provide a safe operation. You need to be both legal, and safe.

I've seen too many cases where GPS coverage was lost for short periods to want to fly IFR with nothing but GPS.
 
gmcjetpilot said:
I believe the answer is NO for cert aircraft, yes for experimental. My research shows it as a gray area.
Click to expand...
George,

I beg to differ. Part 91 makes no distinction for experimental vs. certified aircraft. Once the test period is flown off, we all operate (Part 91) in the same airspace and my view is the answer is YES, per the new verbiage-no gray area. Not that I would do it, but if you wanted to equip with GPS only, the new verbiage seems to permit this.
 
Do you really want to rely on a single navigation solution anyways? Some doomsday prophets are expecting GPS to be useless for periods of time during the next sunspot cycle, which by coincidence will peak during the start ADS-B upgrade period (2011) :eek:. Best to have another option for when the receiver throws the flag and you are SOL.
Me? I miss having an ADF in aircraft... nothing like listening to talk radio and homing in on 10's of kilowatts to get you where you want to be. :D
 
Wow! I'm amazed at the number of quick replies overnight. Thanks to all.

I meant a GNS480, not GNS430W, my mistake.

I did a little more digging and found the following at the FAA.gov site:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/technology/waas/

"Status

The Federal Aviation Administration approved WAAS for aviation use in all weather conditions in July 2003 throughout the continental United States and most of Alaska. Until then, no other navigation system could provide highly precise horizontal and vertical navigation to enable aircraft to fly LPV approaches down to 250 feet in all weather conditions throughout the majority of the national airspace system. In 2006, the FAA completed a technical analysis that showed that WAAS LPV approaches can be safely flown down to 200 feet above the runway at a significant number of airports in the continental United States.

The FAA publishes a minimum of 300 LPV approaches per year. The FAA plans to continue WAAS development in two segments to improve the coverage and reliability of the service.

The next segment of WAAS completes in 2008 and will expand service coverage to all of the continental United States, most of Alaska, and significant regions of Canada and Mexico. After 2008, WAAS will be enhanced to take advantage of new technology provided by the Department of Defense as it builds the next generation of GPS. WAAS LPV instrument procedure production will continue to provide the service at all qualifying runways in the NAS."

Definitely does not sound like a gray area, but encourangement to replace ILS with WAAS. Makes sense to me.

Further information can be found at: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...techops/navservices/gnss/approaches/index.cfm

One can follow this link to the mimima at airports across the country. For example, at my loacal airport in Aiken, SC, the minimums are reduced to 250f HAT, with no ILS on the field.

I will get further verification on 91.205 from the FAA. I still believe the requirement of ground based navigation was taken out on purpose. I'll post when I get a definite reply.

To answer the question about my experience. I hold an instrument/multi rating, with over 2000 hours total time, all in general aviation over the last 40 years or so. Most of my instument time, over 500 hours, has been single pilot IFR, mostly in my old C-310.

Cheers,

Rafael
 
which tso?

i'm surprised that no one has pointed out that there is a difference between tso-c129 and tso-c146 certified equipment, to wit: 129 (non-waas) was _never_ certified as "sole means" navigation, and always required "other means" of navigating. so, a 129 gps is inadequate from a legal, as well as practical (imho) standpoint -- unless the box also contains the vor/ils components (430 non-waas, e.g.) however, tso-146 stuff is approved as "sole means".

i guess the point is moot with a 430w or 480, as they both 1) are tso-146 and 2) contain the vor/ils receiver. still, you wouldn't want to extrapolate to lesser equipment.

me? i've got a 430w. my backup nav is a non-certified waas gps (garmin gps 18 5hz) hooked into the grt efis. i know the backup doesn't satisfy any legal requirements, but if i need it, it's an emergency.

mho,

john
 
ADF Rocks!

Loboflyer said:
Do you really want to rely on a single navigation solution anyways? Some doomsday prophets are expecting GPS to be useless for periods of time during the next sunspot cycle, which by coincidence will peak during the start ADS-B upgrade period (2011) :eek:. Best to have another option for when the receiver throws the flag and you are SOL.
Me? I miss having an ADF in aircraft... nothing like listening to talk radio and homing in on 10's of kilowatts to get you where you want to be. :D
Click to expand...

I'm with you, Lobo! Probably comes as no suprise to you guys, but I'm installing an ADF in my 9! Not only do I enjoy listening to AM radio, but it makes a great approach backup when the military wants to silence or degrade my GPS.
 
I beg to differ

w1curtis said:
George,

I beg to differ. Part 91 makes no distinction for experimental vs. certified aircraft. Once the test period is flown off, we all operate (Part 91) in the same airspace and my view is the answer is YES, per the new verbiage-no gray area. Not that I would do it, but if you wanted to equip with GPS only, the new verbiage seems to permit this.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. You are trying to use logic and FAR's? :eek: Contact your local FSDO, many parts of part 91 don't apply to experimental. I appreciate your "logic" and that is what I use to think. The FAA corrected me, and the FAA is never wrong. :rolleyes: If you're an EAA member check with EAA legal and they can tell you if you are interested. I could be wrong, and its not big deal. Last time I asked a FED this was the word on GPS only nav. This has come up before.

It is similar to Part 23 and part 43, which also don't apply to experimentals. Because part 23 does not apply it affects part 91 equip requirements. Being "Experimental" has powerful freedoms. Most if not all part 91 "flight rules" apply, but when it comes to maintence and equip, no. Part 91.13 applies as always.

I can't give you a hard reference. However "logic" and FAR's don't mix. It's a common mistake to think part 91 applies to experimentals, at least fully. You know FAR's where written by lawyers to be interpreted by lawyers. Factory planes have HARD equip requirements. GPS gets messy with TSO's and other regulatory goblygook, which you may understand. In the case of IFR GPS, another controversy, it must be TSO'ed, regardless if it's the sole nav device or not.

The FAR's don't address GPS very much. FAR's are OLD, written before GPS was a dream in someone's eyes. Therefore our disagreement is understandable. You could be right and it is not important enough to me to call the FSDO again.

Bottom line legal is not necessarily safe as was said above. GPS programing single pilot is high work load.

If you have an actual reference, I'd appreciate you posting it. Always happy to learn. It's a gray area in my opinion. I might be wrong, no big deal. All the best. GPS only OK for experimental but not factory planes. Why? The FAA said so. Good enough for me. However always double check with your friendly FAA inspector.



*Part 23 - Airworthiness standards: Normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes
*Part 43 - Maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration
*Sec 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation.
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
.. many parts of part 91 don't apply to experimental.
Click to expand...
Oh really which parts? I haven't found any that would not apply to experimental owner built and maintained (OBAM) aircraft but I could have missed it. Can you cite which part of FAR part 91 you think do NOT apply to experimental OBAM aircraft once the test period is flow off?

gmcjetpilot said:
*Part 23 - Airworthiness standards: Normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes
*Part 43 - Maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration
*Sec 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation.
Click to expand...
Don't know what you are referring to on these but the FARs that apply to OBAM experimental aircraft are parts 21 and 91. If you look at Part 43.1 (applicability) it specifically EXCLUDES experimental OBAM aircraft.

The guidelines in part 23 & part 43 provide some good direction for experimental OBAM aircraft but are not binding.

gmcjetpilot said:
GPS only OK for experimental but not factory planes. Why? The FAA said so. Good enough for me. However always double check with your friendly FAA inspector.
Click to expand...
This is the part I have a problem with. Where did the FAA say so? I don't see how you make this interpretation. With the new verbiage, any WAAS TSO 146a GPS can be used as sole means navigation in certified or experimental aircraft. Your insistence that a TSO 146a WAAS GPS would only be legal in an experimental is what I can't get past.
 
Last edited:
My Bad but it's still not all clear cut

w1curtis said:
Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot
.. many parts of part 91 don't apply to experimental.
Click to expand...
Oh really which parts? I haven't found any that would not apply to experimental owner built and maintained (OBAM) aircraft but I could have missed it. Can you cite which part of FAR part 91 you think do NOT apply to experimental OBAM aircraft once the test period is flow off? (A day VFR experimental does not need any instruments AT ALL! Don't believe me call the EAA. An example is a compass, it's not needed in an experimental but is in a part 43 plane, even though compass is mentioned in required equip in part 91. Night and IFR a compass is needed in an experimental, but since part 43 does not apply it does not have to be a wet or non-electical compass. A factory plane MUST have a 'wet' or non-electric compass. Part 43 does not apply to us which part 91 references or implies many times, aka compass example. However I'm wrong about the IFR GPS only issue, no diff between exp and factory.)

Quote: Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot
*Part 23 - Airworthiness standards: Normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes
*Part 43 - Maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration
*Sec 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation.
Click to expand...
Don't know what you are referring to on these but the FARs that apply to OBAM experimental aircraft are parts 21 and 91. If you look at Part 43.1 (applicability) it specifically EXCLUDES experimental OBAM aircraft.

The guidelines in part 23 & part 43 provide some good direction for experimental OBAM aircraft but are not binding. (Again part 23 and 43 has NOTHING to do with experimentals, good guide line not withstanding. All regs that do apply exclusively to experimentals don't address GPS. Again I agree IFR GPS only is cool with any GA plane, factory or experimental.)

Quote: Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot
GPS only OK for experimental but not factory planes. Why? The FAA said so. Good enough for me. However always double check with your friendly FAA inspector.
Click to expand...
This is the part I have a problem with. Where did the FAA say so? I don't see how you make this interpretation. With the new verbiage, any WAAS TSO 146a GPS can be used as sole means navigation in certified or experimental aircraft. Your insistence that a TSO 146a WAAS GPS would only be legal in an experimental is what I can't get past. (When GPS was first implemented you HAD to have ground based NAV. Things have changed, my bad. Yes WAAS is the key and NEW! This is why the FAA tried to make a whole bunch of IFR approved GPS obsolete. They backed down but now have restrictions on them and their days are numbered. Things are changing and the trying to kill a bunch of non WAAS GPS was just done with out regulations, just a desire of some in the FAA. WAAS is good and will be the standard (for now), but my point things are in a state of flux.)
Click to expand...
My bad I just visited my friendly FSDO to renew my CFI today (yea two more years).

I asked the inspector this and he said, yes you can fly GPS (IFR approved only) with out any NAV equip for ground based navigation aids in a factory GA plane.

Further the FAA inspector said the FAA is in a panic mode somewhat with GA GPS/EFIS. They are coming to grips with it. They are training their inspectors for these new issues like the following: A student can get his Instrument ticket in a full steam powered 6-pak C-172 and fly a full glass Cirrus the next day; A Students are learning 100% on EFIS since private pilot, in theory gets their IFR rating on EFIS and the next day go to the dark side and fly a steam gauge plane in IMC. That would be ugly. Standardization between Chelton, Avidyne and Garmin is also an issue. You may know the Garmin 1000 but you can't jump into a Chelton EFIS plane. This is a problem SINCE THERE'S NO REGULATIONS ABOUT THIS!

Back to the subject. As far as GPS and flying with only an IFR GPS you can do it, experimental or not.



The SAME inspector told me that experimental EFIS (aka Dynon, GRT, BMA) was ILLEGAL for IFR!!! :eek: Now to be fair he's an operational/pilot inspector and deals with some GA but mostly part 135 operators. I have asked certification and maintenance inspectors and been told non-certified EFIS are OK for IFR flight. Go figure.

This is my point and is still valid, the FAA does not really have FULL regulatory coverage (LAW) for ALL GPS and EFIS implications in GA aircraft. Things are in a state of change and may change back several times before there's real black and white regs. The Gov can't even pass a budget much less set Regs for GPS and IFR ops. To say you know for sure based on written regulations is kind of iffy. Some of this stuff is in policy papers or opinions of individual FAA regions; They don't all agree. To their credit they know it and are doing their best with the budget they have.



Other NEWS, I suspect NDB's where going away FAST. You may have notice ILS LOM's are going away fast rate (Locator Outer Marker - marker beacon & NDB). He answered my question about using an IFR GPS to ID the LOM fix. Yes you can use GPS to ID a LOM fix on a ILS approach. YOU CAN NOT USE GPS FOR DME FIX, SINCE ITS SLANT RANGE. Some ILS approaches say NDB or radar required. Never the less NDB's are being decommissioned as fast as possible. Think about the cost savings and land use. He also said VOR's and ILS are going away and should have been done by now! I have a hard time seeing that happening overnight. The no ground NAV system, all GPS is the plan. We shall see. Its like going metric, which was suppose to happen 25 years ago.

The other big news the FAA will be privatized and get out of the GA business. It will be farmed to some private company. User fees. Defeated this time but pay for services will come. The FAA will be all and only commercial carrier.
 
Last edited:
They don't know

.....their own regulations, George.

Last year I was told by Atlanta FSDO that I couldn't give a guy dual in my -6A (for free) then sign him off to solo his own Zenith CH100. The EAA double-checked with another retired FAA guy and said that I could in fact do this and I did after thoroughly checking both the student pilot dual required regs and the CFI responsibility regs. You may well be da$$ed if you do and da@@ed if you don't have VOR or ILS.

Lets wait and see,
 
GPS as DME?

YOU CAN NOT USE GPS FOR DME FIX, SINCE ITS SLANT RANGE.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is entirely true. Take a look at this link:

<http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/1999/991213gps.html>

An excerpt says: "Effective July 16, 1998, pilots may substitute IFR-certified GPS receivers for DME and ADF avionics for all operations except NDB approaches without a GPS overlay. GPS can be used in lieu of DME and ADF on all localizer-type approaches as well as VOR/DME approaches, including when charted NDB or DME transmitters are temporarily out of service. It also clarifies that IFR GPS satisfies the requirement for DME at and above Flight Level 240 specified in FAR 91.205(e). This approval represents a major step toward removing the need to retain DME or ADF in our cockpits for any reason."

Of course this is from AOPA not the 14 CFR or the AIM, I'm not an expert, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night... Hope this doesn't muddy the waters too much.

-Jim
 
Last edited:
Scott DellAngelo said:
I did not see where anyone else answered this, but the 480 also has VOR/LOC/GS built in it, just like the 430/530. So, if you are planning any of those three then you will have that equipment anyways.

Scott
Click to expand...

I guess I just can't get those number right:eek: You are correct. I'm planning a GNC 420W, for about $7000, together with an SL40 for about $1600. As a backup Nav, I'm thinking of adding a GPS496, for about $2400.

This should give me Redundancy on both NAV and COM for about $11,000. Adding VOR/ILS would add quite a bit of $$$.

I really don't have to make the decision for another year. Who knows what new boxes and pricing are likely to appear.

Regards,

Rafael
 
Oh heck

fehdxl said:
I don't think this is entirely true. Take a look at this link:

<http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/1999/991213gps.html>

-Jim
Click to expand...
Thanks Jim. Good info. I laugh because I try to research this stuff and not make up everything I write. :rolleyes: I totally believe you, I mean I believe the FSDO, oh heck I'll just make it up again. :D

I skimmed through the link and noticed two things. One is the "The new policy" title and no real regulatory reference? I'm sure they're right; just where do these NEW policies come from? How is a "The new policy" disseminated to pilots. May be they're in NOTAMS (D,L Class I/II) or FDC NOTAMS? May be they change the TERPS? :confused:

Second, one of the limitations or exceptions AOPA listed was a DME associated to a LOC with no GPS overlay, or something like that. I think we where talking about ILS approaches, so may be that's what FAA inspector meant about no GPS substitute for DME fix (on a LOC)?
 
Last edited:
GPS w/o VOR/ILS

Sorry I'm joining this converation a bit late.

Garmin has a series of WAAS GPS receivers, the 400W and 500W only have GPS/WAAS and a moving map; the 420W and 520W also have the NAV (ILS/VOR) and the 430W & 530W have a comm radio as well. In Alaska, they have versions with higher transmitter power. The unit will drive a CDI/VDI just like the ILS does.

Some VORs are projected to be turned off; but not for a while; same thoughts apply for the ILSs.... Marker beacons are already being decomissioned as are NDBs.

Is GPS only approved for route of flight navigation; not without a secondary source. WAAS provides that secondary capability. Technically you don't need the ground based system.

Personally, I plan on putting a Garmin 430 in my panel when my RV-7 is ready; and another comm radio.

By the way; LPVs are being commisioned now to 200' where the terrain and infrastructure support it and there will be more than 1000 LPVs published by X-Mas.

Hope this helps...

Marty Heller
RV-7 (fitting the canopy)
WAAS Program office
 
If your GPS is WAAS certified, which the 430W is, you do not need VOR for IFR navigation.
 
JHines said:
? 91.131 Operations in Class B airspace.

<SNIP SNIP SNIP>

(1) For IFR operation. An operable VOR or TACAN receiver or an operable and suitable RNAV system

<SNIP>

It seems like GPS would qualify as a replacement for an RNAV system, but there is such a thing as a VOR/DME based RNAV, so hard to tell if they're requiring ground-based equipment or not. As other poster pointed out, a GNS430 would do the trick.
Click to expand...

Jonathon,

Here is an RNAV that has been the high end offering from King for about 20 years or more. It has all of the above. Do you mean actual approaches or the avionics?

http://www.seaerospace.com/king/kns80.htm

Best,
 
AirMarty said:
...Garmin has a series of WAAS GPS receivers, the 400W and 500W only have GPS/WAAS and a moving map; the 420W and 520W also have the NAV (ILS/VOR) and the 430W & 530W have a comm radio as well. In Alaska, they have versions with higher transmitter power. The unit will drive a CDI/VDI just like the ILS does.
Click to expand...
Marty,

For clarification the Garmin 400/500W series models are as follows:

GPS-400/500W -WAAS GPS ONLY (NO VHF Nav or Comm)
GNC-420W -WAAS GPS Plus Comm (NO VHF Nav-ILS, VOR) Oddly there does not seem to be a 520W.
GNS-430/520W -WAAS GPS, VHF Comm and VHF Nav

Rafael is looking to get the GNS-420W which only includes WAAS GPS and Comm. That is what prompted his question about GPS as sole mean navigation without VOR (VHF Nav).

woodsideraff said:
I guess I just can't get those number right You are correct. I'm planning a GNC 420W, for about $7000, together with an SL40 for about $1600. As a backup Nav, I'm thinking of adding a GPS496, for about $2400.

This should give me Redundancy on both NAV and COM for about $11,000. Adding VOR/ILS would add quite a bit of $$$.
Click to expand...
Rafael,

$7000 for a GNC-420 does not seem like a good value when Van's offers the GNS-430W for $7,765 and others for less. Don't understand how it would add "add quite a bit of $$$."
 
Bryan Wood said:
Jonathon,

Here is an RNAV that has been the high end offering from King for about 20 years or more. It has all of the above. Do you mean actual approaches or the avionics?

http://www.seaerospace.com/king/kns80.htm

Best,
Click to expand...

LOL they still make the KNS-80? Wow, didn't know that. How much is it? Knowing King, it's probably $8000.

I was just pointing out one reg that might possibly require ground-based avionics(from a legal standpoint, not capability-wise). Obviously GPS permits "area navigation", I just don't know if the terminology "RNAV" includes GPS or not.
 
w1curtis said:
Marty,

For clarification the Garmin 400/500W series models are as follows:

GPS-400/500W -WAAS GPS ONLY (NO VHF Nav or Comm)
GNC-420W -WAAS GPS Plus Comm (NO VHF Nav-ILS, VOR) Oddly there does not seem to be a 520W.
GNS-430/520W -WAAS GPS, VHF Comm and VHF Nav

Rafael is looking to get the GNS-420W which only includes WAAS GPS and Comm. That is what prompted his question about GPS as sole mean navigation without VOR (VHF Nav).

Rafael,

$7000 for a GNC-420 does not seem like a good value when Van's offers the GNS-430W for $7,765 and others for less. Don't understand how it would add "add quite a bit of $$$."
Click to expand...

William,

You may be right; the difference between the cost of the GNS and GNC may not be that great. I also must consider the additional antenna installation and the weight penalty. I need not make a decision for another year or so. Who knows what pricing may look like then and what other products may become available.

Since I haven't been flying in almost a year, I have not shot a WASS LVP approach and do not know how it compares with an ILS procedure. I will definitely do this a few times before making the decision.

I also need to learn the communications and filing procedures. What / do you file? Somehow ATC must know what equipment you have on board. Would they still clear you for the ILS approach? A lot of learning ahead...

Cheers,

Rafael

RV7-A Fuselage
 
430w GNS

I found this older thread and looking to up grade panel to IFR panel, I have steam gages six pak, Have there been any changes on what needs to be in the plane to make it IFR cert for Nav Equipt, will the 430w handle it with a 496 as a back up,do you really need the VOR ?
Thanks for any feed back
 
No you do not need VOR for legal or safe IFR. You will be more limited depending upon weather and destination minimums but certainly legal.
 
RV8R999 said:
No you do not need VOR for legal or safe IFR. You will be more limited depending upon weather and destination minimums but certainly legal.
Click to expand...

Ken, given the proliferation of GPS approaches, is that really a valid comment now? I only vaguely recall VOR approaches during my instrument training (never got the rating), but wouldn't most people prefer a GPS approach to a VOR approach?
 
There are several detailed threads covering this subject at length. The limitations of GPS only approaches MAY be specified in the TSO which certifies the GPS system for use as FAA approved equipment for IFR. The equipment manuals of several certified GPS systems (Garmin 400series and 300XL for instance) specify the need to have a non-GPS approach capability should an alternate be required when filing. If the weather at the destination is above that which requires an alternate then no other equipment is needed. Hence my comment about some limitations when installing only a certified GPS for IFR flight. Now I'm not expertly versed on the compulsory nature of manufacterers operation manuals and specifications in TSO's as they apply to FARs. As per the actual FARs there are no such limitations when flying with GPS only equiped airplanes.
 
In some sense the whole argument will soon be moot. ILS/LOC transmitters are being decommissioned almost as fast as VNAV approaches are being approved, and the last estimate I heard was that VNAV approaches outnumber ILS/LOC. Yes, there are some circumstances (can you say "military?") where GPS may be locally unavailable. Your backup? "ATC I've lost primary nav, looking for vectors please!"

In almost 30 years and 3,000 hrs, I've never had to make that call. I HAVE forgotten the correct approach book and had to ask for altitudes (my GPS knew the ground track). :D

All that said, my primary is a GNS 480 and every once in a while I tune in a VOR or an ILS just to confirm that part still works...
 
Its a TSO thing...

The TSO's are the drivers for the rules.

Aircraft equipped with an IFR approved Non-WAAS GPS (TSO-C129a):
- Needs an approved and operational alternative navigation system
- When an alternate is required, it must have a non-GPS approach available
- RAIM availability must be verified before flight

If equipped with an IFR approved WAAS GPS (TSO 145a and 146a):
- No alternative navigation system is required
- The alternate can have only GPS approaches
- Verifying RAIM availability is not required
 
I will be impossible to GET an instrument rating without a VOR.
If you have one already great.

Tad Sargent
working on the instrument rating in my 7A with Dual GRT's and a 430
 
Very happy with gps only

I chose to go with the GNC420 gps/com when I recently upgraded my panel. This was added to my single SL40 for com redundancy. Added cost for the 430 is way more than just the box cost. Antenea, cabling, etc. Not to mention the head first in the footwells time. I have no desire to fly in tough IMC, so no vor or ils doesn't bother me. If I can get through a marine layer that will be enough for me. By the way, the gps coupled to my dynon auto pilot is just too cool!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.