[Dean]

I need some help and suggestions on an IFR panel. I recently purchased 2 Cheltons with the Freeflite 1101 GPS. I also planned on putting in a Garmin 430 and SL40 (2 Comms). I installed a Trutrak Sorcerer autopilot. Do I need a VOR NAV (SL30)? Do I even need VOR capability? What else is required for legal IFR flight. I also installed 3 round backup gauges in case the Cheltons go offline (airspeed, attitude, altimeter). Everything is electric with 2 alternators (60 amp and 20amp). I have 2 electrical busses for redundency. I am planning on the Electronics International engine monitor. I also installed a Gretz heated pitot tube and AOA gauge. Any suggestions on anything I am missing or how I could make this better would be apprecitated. Should I put the Cheltons directly in front of me or one on each side.

I also am planning on a Mode S transponder and audio panel for the 2 comms and a Hobbs meter.

Thanks for the help.

Dean

 

[Davepar]

The Garmin GNS430 includes a VOR/LOC/GS receiver. My (rather limited) understanding is that you will need that for instrument approaches until GPS approaches become more common. If you're buying the 430 now, be aware that the WAAS-enabled model (needed for GPS approaches) won't be out until Dec/Jan. If you buy a 430 now you can still upgrade it later to WAAS.

I'm not familiar with the Freeflight 1101 GPS. If that's IFR certified, the 430 would be redundant.

I would think you'd want both Chelton screens in front of you. One would display flight instruments, the other a moving map. That seems to be the typical set up.

The guys at Direct2Avionics should be able to help you out quite a bit with your questions on equipment. I'm sure they've installed many systems, and have run across similar questions. If anything, it looks like you have more redundancy than average.

 

[aadamson]

I need some help and suggestions on an IFR panel. I recently purchased 2 Cheltons with the Freeflite 1101 GPS. I also planned on putting in a Garmin 430 and SL40 (2 Comms). I installed a Trutrak Sorcerer autopilot. Do I need a VOR NAV (SL30)? Do I even need VOR capability? What else is required for legal IFR flight. I also installed 3 round backup gauges in case the Cheltons go offline (airspeed, attitude, altimeter). Everything is electric with 2 alternators (60 amp and 20amp). I have 2 electrical busses for redundency. I am planning on the Electronics International engine monitor. I also installed a Gretz heated pitot tube and AOA gauge. Any suggestions on anything I am missing or how I could make this better would be apprecitated. Should I put the Cheltons directly in front of me or one on each side.

I also am planning on a Mode S transponder and audio panel for the 2 comms and a Hobbs meter.

Thanks for the help.

Dean

Dean,

Might i suggest... This is a sorta complicated topic, based upon what you have... Here is a high level sketch for those that may be thinking about doing what you did. However, if you'll drop me an email at aadamson at highrf dot com, I'll give you my phone number and we can talk live.

Here is my panel

It will be pretty similar to yours. A couple of notes. The 1101 is fully WAAS IFR Certifiable (it meets the TSO requirements) and it will allow IFR approach and enroute, including LNAV only, LNAV-VNAV and with a future software upgrade, it should also allow for LPV WAAS approaches. These are all the new nomenclature for approaches under WAAS.

The 430 would give you, today, TSO-129a or non-WAAS enroute and approach capabilities (redundant with the 1101). It would also give you a comm and a nav. It can also be purchased today without WAAS, or if you wait, upgraded later to the "W" version which would then support the WAAS features (and would be redundant, but perhaps that what you are looking for, with the 1101).

I elected to put in an sl-30 instead of a redundant GPS/Comm/NAV, I saved the money and installed or provisioned for the portable 496.

The AP that you've chosen also is somewhat overkill, but depends on your applications. I instead elected to save the money and put the Digiflight II VSGV in my panel. It supports all of the features of sorcerer, when used with the Cheltons.

You'll also see the MVP-50 (EI engine monitor) in my panel. Not sure if you are going this way or not, but it provides for other niceties like flaps indication, trim indication, multiple buss, fuel, etc monitoring and intefaces with the Chelton and it's CAWS (Cautionary Audio Warning System).

Don't know what they get for the Pitot tube that you mentioned, I'm a dual alt/buss 24v system and so I elected to go to the standard pitot tube.

As for the AOA, I'm using the ACS Pro version. The Chelton also provides a software version, but I'm not sure they are completely the same. The Chelton does not interface to the external AOA.

As for Transponder, I decided to save my money and only install a Mode C version. Yes, Mode S is nice, but the FAA is actively removing it from their radar environment. Here in ATL, we've lost it in 2 major area in just the last few months. Instead, I'm going to go ADS-B down the road. The Chelton already supports it.

For sure the comments about putting both displays in front of you is the preferred way to go.

So, beyond that, drop me a note and we'll exchange numbers and can carry this on directly.

 

[N941WR]

... I am planning on the Electronics International engine monitor....a Hobbs meter.

Dean,

You may not need the Hobbs meter with the engine monitor you selected, it might have one built in. This will save you a little panel space.

 

[aadamson]

Dean,

You may not need the Hobbs meter with the engine monitor you selected, it might have one built in. This will save you a little panel space.

Bill, great catch, yes, both the Chelton, and the MVP-50 have the equivalent of a "HOBBS" meters I believe...

 

[pmathews]

Freeflite 1101???

I've never heard of this gps - I tried googling it and came up empty. Can you provide a link or some more info on this?

Thanks
Patrick

 

[aadamson]

The FreeFlight Systems 1101 is the experimental version of the 1201 without the TSO sticker, it is just a GPS module and is availabe for the experiemental market. It's the exact same thing as a 1201.

Hope this helps,
Alan

 

[JonathanCook]

free flight link

Here is the FreeFlight link. http://www.freeflightsystems.com/ .

Jonathan

 

[captainron]

Do I need VOR capability? What else is required for IFR flight?

First place to check would be FAR 91-205 wher they will say, among other things: 2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.

 

[captainron]

There is actually very little avionics required for IFR flight. Whatever will get the job done. You really don't have to mortgage the house and fill-up your panel with expensive stuff.
In one of my first jet-jobs some years back, the company had some old Citation II's that only had basic VOR navigation. Two VORs. That's it! No GPS, no Loran, not even RNAV! Believe me, these planes are still out there making a living every day!
I would have to file long, convoluted "slant alpha" flight plans along the airways and jet routes, but what I, and a lot of other pilots would do was to purchase a handheld GPS, and fly with that. My first one was a Garmin III Plus, I bought from Wal-Mart. No database; every waypoint had to be manually entered. After taking-off I would ask the controller for "direct destination". The comeback would usually go something like this: "Citation xxxxx, say destination coordinates".
Me: "North 43' 14", west 75' 25".
ATC: "Citation xxxxx, say distance to destination".
Me: "437 and a half miles".
ATC: " Citation xxxxx, procede direct".

I never worried that I would get into any trouble for navigating too accurately.

 

[Davepar]

There is actually very little avionics required for IFR flight. Whatever will get the job done. You really don't have to mortgage the house and fill-up your panel with expensive stuff.

That may have been true in the past. Where my plane will be based there are currently no instrument approaches. However, they are working on getting a GPS approach. Thus, I'll need an IFR GPS. I guess a VOR/LOC/GS receiver is needed for some approaches. Or I've heard there are GPS overlays in some cases?

I don't have my instrument ticket yet, but I find the world of IFR approaches to be incredibly confusing. VOR, ILS, LOC, GS, MB, DME, WAAS, etc. etc. Guess I'll get it figured out eventually. Right now I'm too busy building.

 

[captainron]

The current FAR 91.205 is, well.....Current!

 

[Dean]

Thank you to everyone for your responses. Dean

 

[cgfinn]

update to IFR question

Adam,

I'm at the point of an IFR panel design and trying to put all the information together. Looking at my needs and desires it appears has lead my personal tastes to be similar to your approach. I really like the Chelton's even though the rest of the crowd is making advances, but hopefully Chelton is too (at least dropping their prices) and I was thinking you could go simpler with an sl30 instead of a 430. Are you losing any functionality with this compromise?

Does the 496 provide anything other than additional SA and redundancy, maybe you are using that for a cheaper wx option?

Any new info on the ADS-B vs the mode S front?

much obliged,

Chuck

Here is my panel

... A couple of notes. The 1101 is fully WAAS IFR Certifiable (it meets the TSO requirements) and it will allow IFR approach and enroute, including LNAV only, LNAV-VNAV and with a future software upgrade, it should also allow for LPV WAAS approaches. These are all the new nomenclature for approaches under WAAS.

The 430 would give you, today, TSO-129a or non-WAAS enroute and approach capabilities (redundant with the 1101). It would also give you a comm and a nav. It can also be purchased today without WAAS, or if you wait, upgraded later to the "W" version which would then support the WAAS features (and would be redundant, but perhaps that what you are looking for, with the 1101).

I elected to put in an sl-30 instead of a redundant GPS/Comm/NAV, I saved the money and installed or provisioned for the portable 496.

The AP that you've chosen also is somewhat overkill, but depends on your applications. I instead elected to save the money and put the Digiflight II VSGV in my panel. It supports all of the features of sorcerer, when used with the Cheltons.

You'll also see the MVP-50 (EI engine monitor) in my panel. Not sure if you are going this way or not, but it provides for other niceties like flaps indication, trim indication, multiple buss, fuel, etc monitoring and intefaces with the Chelton and it's CAWS (Cautionary Audio Warning System).

Don't know what they get for the Pitot tube that you mentioned, I'm a dual alt/buss 24v system and so I elected to go to the standard pitot tube.

As for the AOA, I'm using the ACS Pro version. The Chelton also provides a software version, but I'm not sure they are completely the same. The Chelton does not interface to the external AOA.

As for Transponder, I decided to save my money and only install a Mode C version. Yes, Mode S is nice, but the FAA is actively removing it from their radar environment. Here in ATL, we've lost it in 2 major area in just the last few months. Instead, I'm going to go ADS-B down the road. The Chelton already supports it.

For sure the comments about putting both displays in front of you is the preferred way to go.

So, beyond that, drop me a note and we'll exchange numbers and can carry this on directly.

 

[Ron Lee]

Caveat: I may be wrong so verify all comments

I just got my GNS 430 back from its upgrade to the WAAS version so I suspect that it will be able to do just about any approach you may need in the future (blow off NDB).

You may not be able to buy the non-WAAS version anymore.

The upgrade is $1500 IF........foot stomp...... you get the unit scheduled prior to 1 Sept 2007 if my date is right. Then it goes up to around $3000 USD.

I could not find the Freeflight 1101 so I am not assuming that it is TSO compliant.

 

[JHines]

That may have been true in the past. Where my plane will be based there are currently no instrument approaches. However, they are working on getting a GPS approach. Thus, I'll need an IFR GPS. I guess a VOR/LOC/GS receiver is needed for some approaches. Or I've heard there are GPS overlays in some cases?

I don't have my instrument ticket yet, but I find the world of IFR approaches to be incredibly confusing. VOR, ILS, LOC, GS, MB, DME, WAAS, etc. etc. Guess I'll get it figured out eventually. Right now I'm too busy building.

If you carefully look over the approach procedures for most areas, you'll find 2 things: (1) in lots of places, VOR/LOC, or dual VOR/LOC "only" is not very useful because you need ADF, DME, or both to completely navigate the approach in a non-radar envrionment, or when ATC is too busy to vector you; (2) VORs and NDBs are continually being decomissioned.

More and more GPS approaches are being created and yes, there are GPS overlays for a lot of VOR & NDB approaches.

IMO, you really need dual VOR/LOC plus ADF & DME plus GPS to get full utility out of the plane.

Since IFR GPS can substitute for ADF & DME (in most all cases), dual VHF nav/comms +1 IFR GPS fills the bill quite nicely.

 

[conlimon]

Freeflight GPS

Just a quick note regarding the Freeflight 1101 GPS sensor. if you call Freeflight, they will tell you that the 1101 is to be used as a VFR ONLY GPS. if you have a 1101 they will take that plus some money to upgrade to the new revised 1201 unit which has just received the TSO (with a couple deviations that are supposed to be removed in the fall sometime). currently, the TSO states that you have to do a RAIM prediction before embarking on an IFR flight. also, according to Freeflight, there are no plans for the 1201 sensor to be able to have an upgrade to allow it to be used for LPV approaches. I got this info by calling the tech support at Freeflight after i heard a rumor that the sensor I was sold with my Chelton unit was VFR only. hope this info helps!

cj
#40410
fuse/finishing
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net

 

[aadamson]

Adam,

I'm at the point of an IFR panel design and trying to put all the information together. Looking at my needs and desires it appears has lead my personal tastes to be similar to your approach. I really like the Chelton's even though the rest of the crowd is making advances, but hopefully Chelton is too (at least dropping their prices) and I was thinking you could go simpler with an sl30 instead of a 430. Are you losing any functionality with this compromise?

Does the 496 provide anything other than additional SA and redundancy, maybe you are using that for a cheaper wx option?

Any new info on the ADS-B vs the mode S front?

much obliged,

Chuck

The 496 in my panel is only for backup. For now, I'll use the GPS that is included in the Chelton GADAHRS. Chelton is also developing a WAAS certified GPS module that should be available in the fall. It with the Cheltons screens will be one of the few that meet both the (a) versions of the TSO, but also the version without the (a) (specifically 146a - WAAS TSO, and 146 - FMS TSO) With this module, you'll be able to perform any gps approach including the new precision ones called LPV. The FF gps, even the new revised 1201 model, will never be able to do LPV and has always been a limitation to that product.

The advantage to the SL-30/40 is that they can be connected to the Chelton via a very simple 3 wire interface and then the Chelton screens can send frequency data to them. They in turn can provide digital nav signals to the Chelton screens to drive the HSI, RMI features. The 430(w) will not be able to do either of these items without adding other expensive ARINC convertor boxes.

As for the comments about Mode S. I wouldn't waste my time or money on it right now. With the latest version of the Chelton software, there is now support for ADS-B via the Garmin GDL-90. I'm working to see if I can borrow or gain a loaner version to determine this functionality. I've devised what I believe to be the correct hookup to support TIS-B (traffic), and FIS-B (weather, Metar, TAF, etc) via the GDL-90 and the Cheltons. I'll know more as I get my panel wired, installed, and see about borrowoing a GDL-90.

Hope this helps,

 

[aadamson]

Just a quick note regarding the Freeflight 1101 GPS sensor. if you call Freeflight, they will tell you that the 1101 is to be used as a VFR ONLY GPS. if you have a 1101 they will take that plus some money to upgrade to the new revised 1201 unit which has just received the TSO (with a couple deviations that are supposed to be removed in the fall sometime). currently, the TSO states that you have to do a RAIM prediction before embarking on an IFR flight. also, according to Freeflight, there are no plans for the 1201 sensor to be able to have an upgrade to allow it to be used for LPV approaches. I got this info by calling the tech support at Freeflight after i heard a rumor that the sensor I was sold with my Chelton unit was VFR only. hope this info helps!

cj
#40410
fuse/finishing
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net

Yes, this appears to be the official comment from FF. However, there is no physical or electrical difference between the 1201 and the 1101 with the exception that one has a TSO sticker and one does not. At the end of the day, it doesn't much matter anyway, as long as you can prove to the FAA if asked, that your GPS solution functions in equivalence to the TSO. This last statement is the key statement regardless of what GPS option you choose, it's just way easier if you can show that the device you use either has the TSO sticker, or is the same as the unit that does.

Also note, there are actually 2 things required to meet the WAAS TSO, one is the GPS modules must support WAAS, and it must update at 5hrz (5 times a second). The TSO-129a GPS modules only update a 1hz and some of the WAAS modules still only update at 1hz. This next item is the one that keeps getting in the way of most of the experimental EFIS providers. There is a requirement for what was called RAIM in the 129a GPS's. In the terms of the WAAS GPS's, it's called "integrity monitoring". It has to detect not only lateral out of tollerance, but also vertical and do this at the new more precise tollerances of WAAS. This is software functionality that actually has to be built into the EFIS systems, and that code would then have to "meet the TSO" as well.

This last point is one of the advantages of a Chelton system. The code that it's running is the same as the certified version (so is the hardware for that matter). And at least with Chelton, the experimental crowd gets the feature first.

The more I fly behind a Chelton, the more I like it. And I have a G1000 182 to compare it against .

 

[w1curtis]

Adam,

I'm at the point of an IFR panel design and trying to put all the information together. Looking at my needs and desires it appears has lead my personal tastes to be similar to your approach. I really like the Chelton's even though the rest of the crowd is making advances, but hopefully Chelton is too (at least dropping their prices) and I was thinking you could go simpler with an sl30 instead of a 430. Are you losing any functionality with this compromise?

Yes! you will not have an IFR GPS or DME. A 430w would allow WAAS IFR GPS, VHF NAV/COM and DME capabilities. Much more useful than dual SL-30s.

It with the Cheltons screens will be one of the few that meet both the (a) versions of the TSO, but also the version without the (a) (specifically 146a - WAAS TSO, and 146 - FMS TSO) With this module, you'll be able to perform any gps approach including the new precision ones called LPV.

I don't understand this statement. How does the addition of a certified GPS module to uncertified EFIS screens (Chelton Sport) make a TSO'd product? You could add this functionality today if you add a GNS-430/480/530

....
The 430(w) will not be able to do either of these items without adding other expensive ARINC converter boxes.

ARINC 429 is standard on the 430. You mean "adding other expensive ARINC converter boxes" [to the Chelton]?

At the end of the day, it doesn't much matter anyway, as long as you can prove to the FAA if asked, that your GPS solution functions in equivalence to the TSO.

I would wager that if you you got busted for flying a GPS approach with the 1101, this would NOT hold up in court. You suggesting people do this borders on irresponsible.

This next item is the one that keeps getting in the way of most of the experimental EFIS providers. There is a requirement for what was called RAIM in the 129a GPS's. In the terms of the WAAS GPS's, it's called "integrity monitoring". It has to detect not only lateral out of tolerance, but also vertical and do this at the new more precise tolerances of WAAS. This is software functionality that actually has to be built into the EFIS systems, and that code would then have to "meet the TSO" as well.

No, it's not called "integrity monitoring" it's called FDE (Fault Detection and Exclusion). The EFIS has nothing to do with it. It should all be done by the WAAS GPS engine.

This last point is one of the advantages of a Chelton system. The code that it's running is the same as the certified version (so is the hardware for that matter). And at least with Chelton, the experimental crowd gets the feature first.

Why do you keep saying this? It is NOT the same. The hardware (the screens, the ADHRS and form factor) is different between the Sport and the Pro. This means minimally the drivers are different even if the high level software is the same, which to anyone who knows software means it's ALL different.

The more I fly behind a Chelton, the more I like it. And I have a G1000 182 to compare it against .

Is you aircraft (Chelton equipped Lancair) flying yet?

 

[aadamson]

Yes! you will not have an IFR GPS or DME. A 430w would allow WAAS IFR GPS, VHF NAV/COM and DME capabilities. Much more useful than dual SL-30s.

I don't understand this statement. How does the addition of a certified GPS module to uncertified EFIS screens (Chelton Sport) make a TSO'd product? You could add this functionality today if you add a GNS-430/480/530

ARINC 429 is standard on the 430. You mean "adding other expensive ARINC converter boxes" [to the Chelton]?

I would wager that if you you got busted for flying a GPS approach with the 1101, this would NOT hold up in court. You suggesting people do this borders on irresponsible.

No, it's not called "integrity monitoring" it's called FDE (Fault Detection and Exclusion). The EFIS has nothing to do with it. It should all be done by the WAAS GPS engine.

Why do you keep saying this? It is NOT the same. The hardware (the screens, the ADHRS and form factor) is different between the Sport and the Pro. This means minimally the drivers are different even if the high level software is the same, which to anyone who knows software means it's ALL different.

Is you aircraft (Chelton equipped Lancair) flying yet?

William , you and I should just agree, we continually disagree and get on with life. But for the sake of others, I'll attempt to answer these in order.

a), there is no requirement for an actual TSO in experimental aircraft, you just simply have to prove (the magic question, that I"m not about to claim I know how to do) that your solution meets the TSO. As you probably also know, the TSO is a specification that addresses more software than hardware, altho there are specific hardware requirements as well. I suspect that proving hardware is easier than software, but at least with Chelton, it's easy to prove the software linage as well.

b) ARINC isn't the only solution, the software in the box has to be able to send the correct ARINC strings, and the box on the receiving end has to be able to understand them.

c) You have read my answer any way you wish, but no-where did I tell someone to do anything, nor how to do it. I simply suggested that *if* you were asked you'd have to prove it.

d) you obviously don't understand the integrity monitoring function any better than the other Experiment guys... It wll require not only the GPS module to provide the appropriate NMEA, ARINC or other strings and the new refresh rate, but it will also require that the FMS system (may be the EFIS, may not) know what to do when it recieves one of those strings. While the function you mention may be the module side, you still have to have software on the FMS side that if talking to a module only device, knows what do when when there is a loss of resolution for either vertical, horizontal or both.

e) as for software, it's exactly the same software between the certified and non-certified, same code base, and depending on what other external perpherals there are, same distirubtion. and the linage is definable with Chelton.

My Chelton system isn't flyable yet, but it's nearing completion. However, I've got another Legacy that I fly all the time with dual chelton and a 430/SL40 combo. While not a 430(w), I've now got almost 100hrs behind a chelton system and about a 150hr behind a G1000 and there is simply no comparision in what can be done with the 2 systems. Caveot, tho, my G1000 doesn't not have the new Garmin AP or WAAS NAV/COMM/GPS modules so things may get some better once it does. However, I don't think that Garmin in the G1000 solution has full vert/horiz nav from the IAF to MAP and then back to HOLD with resequence, which the CFS solution does if you elect to utilize it.

Can I ask, what's your beef anyway. you went down the OP route, so, I went down the CFS route. We'll both have our challenges either way around this TSO topic, but neither are going to convince the other that they made a poor decision so aren't we just ****ing in the wind to try?

Now for the more appropriate question... you flying yours yet? As you know, I got burned by the D2A thing, rather bad, but then again, that's a whole nother topic

Take care, best of luck and perhaps we'll be at a fly in together sometime and can say hi in person. I flew this other Legacy to OSH and back for the week and had a blast meeting friends for the first time.

 

[w1curtis]

Can I ask, what's your beef anyway. you went down the OP route, so, I went down the CFS route. We'll both have our challenges either way around this TSO topic, but neither are going to convince the other that they made a poor decision so aren't we just ****ing in the wind to try?

Now for the more appropriate question... you flying yours yet? As you know, I got burned by the D2A thing, rather bad, but then again, that's a whole nother topic

My "beef" as you put it, is with misinformation and obfuscation. For your information, I currently fly a 177RG with a Garmin 430w with S-Tek autopilot and can do all those function you mention above that the G1000 can't do. You obviously have me confused with someone else as I have not purchased any avionics (Op or other) for my RV-10 yet.

Look at all my post, I have never "bashed" the Chelton or try to convince anyone that they made a bad decision. I just try to correct misinformation and misrepresentation. For example, in your previous post, you made it seem that an ARINC 429 interface would be required in the 430 for the Chelton to display the HSI information. The plain fact is that you would need the optional $1,700 ARINC interface card in the Chelton.

Your exact sentence was:

The 430(w) will not be able to do either of these items without adding other expensive ARINC converter boxes.

At best this is obfuscation, at worst it is outright misinformation (intentional or otherwise) depending on how you interpret the sentence.

All I did above was address each of your points and attempt to show why they are invalid.

Now let's look at the hardware to which you keep repeating is the same.
Fully Certified Chelton Pro line which you tout. Cost ~$60,000
IDU III PFD, IDU III MFD, certified Crossbow 500GA ADHRS

All un-certified Chelton Sport line which you tout. Cost ~$30,000
IDU I PFD, IDU I MFD, original Crossbow ADHRS, new replacement Pinpoint ADHRS

You would have us believe that the IDU I and the IDU III are the same hardware. What about the gyros? -more misinformation.

Here is the detailed technical specification sheet for the Chelton Proline with it's list of TSO's.
http://www.cheltonflightsystems.com/Prod_cert_specs_tech.html Where is this document for the Chelton Sport line with the TSO'd list to which you continually refer?

 

[Ron Lee]

Here is my take on this...even if wrong

Your nav receivers need to be TSOd to legally fly IFR.

Your best nav capabilities are GPS (GPS/WAAS), then ILS then VOR although I can see where some would place VOR above ILS since VOR provides en route nav. So I would prefer a comm/IFR GPS over a comm/VOR unit as a backup. If that unit provided GPS approaches all the better.

To the OP, go to www.airnav.com and enter airports that you may fly to. Scroll down and look at the approaches. You are likely to find that GPS is very common...more so than ILS and probably even VOR. Forget about NDB.

 

[Jconard]

Yes, this appears to be the official comment from FF. However, there is no physical or electrical difference between the 1201 and the 1101 with the exception that one has a TSO sticker and one does not. At the end of the day, it doesn't much matter anyway, as long as you can prove to the FAA if asked, that your GPS solution functions in equivalence to the TSO. This last statement is the key statement regardless of what GPS option you choose, it's just way easier if you can show that the device you use either has the TSO sticker, or is the same as the unit that does.


This is absolutely untrue, the 1101 and 1201 are not physically or electrically the same on the inside. The 1101 was not designed to meet the same capabilities as the 1201, it does not have the same capabilities, and the folks who originally started that campaign of misinformation are D2 avionics....suffice it to say that those initial claims were not made responsibly.

 

[captainron]

Don't be dieing to go all glass!

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0707/00948I24.PDF
This is the ILS 24 at ISP that I just shot yesterday. The aircraft was equipped with a Garmn GPS 400 with a current database as well as standard analog VOR/ILS. I loaded the ILS 24 into the Garmin and had planned to fly it to the ILS course intercept on the VOR. Upon arriving at CCC, the Gamin instructed me to fly 264 degrees for the transition which I started to do, but a quick check of the approach plate indicated that the correct transition bearing from CCC was 271 degrees. If Ihad flown 264 degrees, I would have intercepted the localizer inside
of the Coram intersection at 2000' and then would have had to "dive" for the glideslope. Not cool! The transition is where it is to keep you in safe airspace, and while the error in the Garmin approach woudn't have killed me on this one, you really need to cross-reference what your "magic boxes" are telling you. ILS's are meant to be flown from ground-based references using VOR/ILS and glideslope recievers. Fly safe!

 

[w1curtis]

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0707/00948I24.PDF
This is the ILS 24 at ISP that I just shot yesterday. The aircraft was equipped with a Garmn GPS 400 with a current database as well as standard analog VOR/ILS. I loaded the ILS 24 into the Garmin and had planned to fly it to the ILS course intercept on the VOR. Upon arriving at CCC, the Gamin instructed me to fly 264 degrees for the transition which I started to do, but a quick check of the approach plate indicated that the correct transition bearing from CCC was 271 degrees. If Ihad flown 264 degrees, I would have intercepted the localizer inside
of the Coram intersection at 2000' and then would have had to "dive" for the glideslope. Not cool! The transition is where it is to keep you in safe airspace, and while the error in the Garmin approach woudn't have killed me on this one, you really need to cross-reference what your "magic boxes" are telling you. ILS's are meant to be flown from ground-based references using VOR/ILS and glideslope recievers. Fly safe!

Ever since I've had the 430 installed, I've always had dual glideslopes. I usually leave the 430 on the GPS overlay and then fly the actual ILS with the #2 VHF NAV. I've NEVER seen such a large disparity between the GPS ILS overlay and the actual ILS on my 430 and now 430w. I wonder since the 400 does NOT have a built in VHF Nav radio does this make a difference-shouldn't.

Couple of questions:
Is you database current? I can't imagine that magnetic drift would have caused such a large error.
Was the approach actually loaded and not just fixes cobbled together?
What was transition point, Calverton or via vectors?
Is it possible you were north of Calverton where 264 may have been an appropriate heading to intercept CORAM?

In either case, if you have not already done so, you should upgrade the 400 to a 400w before the Sept 1st deadline where the price goes up to $3,000. Yesterday I flew an RNAV approach to absolute *actual* minimums into Chester (SNC) with vertical guidance and man this thing is sweet! ILS like lateral and vertical guidance into an 2000 foot uncontrolled airport. Contrary to the above misinformation, the 430w will fly ALL aspects of the approach (entry, procedure turns, vertical guidance, missed and hold).

 

[captainron]

As stated, nav database is current. The approach was loaded from the procedures page with the Calverton transition. The a/p flew the a/c to the CCC vor coupled on the nav function.

 

[Kevin Horton]

... you really need to cross-reference what your "magic boxes" are telling you.

Excellent advice. I've seen more than one occasion where the approaches pulled out of the database did not match the approach charts. One of those occasions had all the correct waypoint names, but the FAF waypoint had the wrong lat and long, so there was a big dog leg in the middle of the approach. I've also seen another case where the vertical guidance had you crossing the FAF well below the altitude on the approach chart. A friend ran into a case where the runway had multiple GPS approaches, but the GPS database only had the WAAS approach. But his GPS wasn't a WAAS receiver, so he couldn't legally fly that approach (it had a significantly different ground track than the regular GPS approach, which he would have flown, if it had been in the database). Fortunately the weather was VFR.

When you load the approach, cross check waypoint names, altitudes at waypoints, and bearings and distances between waypoints (the check of bearings and distances between waypoints replaces the more painful check of lat and long of each waypoint).