[prkaye]

Alfio pointed-out to me something I did not know. The cost of updating the database for an IFR GPS unit like the Garmin 430 is something like 500 bucks a year. This got me thinking - do I really need an IFR GPS.
In the old days, an IFR plane would could have something like an SL-30, and an ADF for redundancy (we have more strict rules about redundancy of equipment here in Canada, including a requirement or redundant displays for navigation equipment). So I was thinking, I could save some money by doing an old-school IFR setup, and either have no GPS, or a VFR GPS to supplement the IFR equipment (VOR/ILS/ADF). Have any of you guys considered going this route, for cost-savings reasons?

 

[Norman CYYJ]

What redundancy rules are you referring to Phil.

 

[L.Adamson]

You can certainly go with the VFR GPS (portable) to supplement the "old school" IFR. And these days, with GPS providing terrain and obstacle warnings as an added bonus especially in IMC ---------------- it's almost nuts to go without, considering the relatively low cost.

I have this thing about keeping track of flight into terrain accidents; since we seem to average at least three a year around here. A good moving map GPS with terrain warning functions could have prevented many of them. In other words, it's extremely valuable technology, that old school just never had!

L.Adamson --- Garmin 296 portable

 

[Ironflight]

Sure!

I used to fly IFR in my Yankee for years with "old school" stuff. Then I got a VFR GPS, and it really helped my situational awareness - but legally, I was still VOR/ADF/ILS. My -8 is the first plane I've owned with an IFR GPS, and I really like the capability. The panel we just finished for Louise's -6 has no IFR GPS - but there is a 396 for "situational Awareness" - and we'll be able to file IFR under some circumstances with the equipment we have.

The potential limitation to going without an IFR GPS is how many non-GPS approaches are or will be available, and while you can easily determine the answer to the first question, the second (what WILL be) is a matter of fortune telling. And i recognize that Canada may very well have a different philosophy on this than the US. NDB approaches sure seem to be going away here (I mus admit, I haven't paid attention, as I no longer have an ADF).

Although the Valkyrie and I are IFR certified and always current, the truth is that in the past year of flying, over 300 hours with trips all over the country, I really have had to file and fly in IMC just a coupe of times, so your concern about database costs is understandable. I choose to keep our capability ready, just in case - but the answer for others might be to save that money for an extra night in a hotel room somewhere, waiting for better weather.

Paul

 

[Kevin Horton]

Phil - Another option - Practically speaking, the IFR GPS is most useful for enroute navigation, as it allows you to go direct. Most airports that have a GPS approach also have an approach based on conventional navaids. So, you could simply not keep the GNS 430 database up to date. You could still use it for enroute navigation (you should check coordinates of any points in your flight plan against current pubs if the database is out of date), but you couldn't use it for terminal or approach procedures (see Aeronautical Information Circular 27/05 Instrument Flight Rules Operations Using Global Navigation Satellite System).

 

[David-aviator]

There's nothing like GPS - VFR or IFR - you've got have it.

I came up through the old school and can not imagine going without GPS today, it is so COOL compared to VOR, DME, ADF or I Follow Roads. I still carry charts but GPS gets me where I want to go.

My darn transponder died back in November and has been in a shop since November 29th. Long story short, its a Becker and parts had to be ordered from Germany and then shop test equipment was due calibration which takes 4-5 weeks. Why they don't have more than one piece of test equipment blows my mind.

Anyway, today I wanted to fly into a Class D airport under Class B airspace to meet some other geezers for lunch and decided to ask for a waiver. The neat thing about GPS is I flew right along a 30 mile mode C arc while negotiating with approach control. It took about one minute to get an all day pass from the lady once she had a break from vectoring part 121 guys to the local big airport - just stay out of my Class B airspace - yes mam, thank you very much.

Maybe think about upgrading the GPS once or twice a year and be current once or twice a year, but I would miss not having it at all. I upgrade mine during the annual condition inspection for $35 and it seems most adequate at least for VFR.

 

[Noah]

If this is truly the cost ($500) for an annual subscription for a 430W then I think many people would think twice. Can anybody confirm this price or supply a link to pricing?

Highest Regards,

 

[Ironflight]

I think my 430 subscription was about $320 last time.

 

[John Clark]

Jeppesen prices

Paul beat me to it, the full US (48 state) coverage is about $320. Actually it is a good deal, the same coverage in printed manuals is $1024 a year and a whole lot heavier.

Most ofthe larger pilot supply shops are Jeppesen dealers and have listings for less than full USA coverage.

Here is the URL for Garmin's pricing:
http://shop.garmin.com/aviation/databases/options.asp

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

 

[Norman CYYJ]

When I was working before I retired Becker was the hardest avionics equipment to get parts or service for. The time delays were horrible. The manuals that they would sell you never had the updates or revisions.

 

[w1curtis]

If this is truly the cost ($500) for an annual subscription for a 430W then I think many people would think twice. Can anybody confirm this price or supply a link to pricing?

Highest Regards,

The full AMERICAS WAAS yearly subscription (updated monthly) cost is $410;
The Full USA WAAS yearly subscription (updated monthly) cost is $350;
The East/Central or West/Central WAAS yearly subscription (updated monthly) cost is $290.

These prices assume using the Skybound (Internet) update for a single receiver. I think the monthly "mail in" subscription is about $600 per year.

 

[Msletten]

I'm convinced this is one of the big reasons Garmin chose to cease production on the former UPSAT GPS products, including 480 series. The 480 was originally a UPSAT product. Embarassingly, UPSAT beat Garmin by a couple of years with a WAAS-compatible product in the 480. Garmin rolled the 480 (and all other UPSAT products) into its product lineup when it purchased UPSAT a few years back.

My old UPSAT GX-60's FAA-approved manual stated as long as the operator insured the data for the waypoints of intended use for a particular flight were current then he/she needn't update the database. In other words, it was perfectly legal to fly with a database that hadn't been updated for years as long as you checked the waypoints you intended to use before IFR flight.

To make it even easier, I coincided my yearly $200 database update (! -- no way will you EVER see a Garmin database that cheap) with my Air Chart System subscription. Air Charts issues a list on a 28-day cycle detailing all the chart changes since the date of issue. That meant I could just look at the list to determine the non-current info in my database -- very convenient.

Too bad Garmin ceased production on all UPSAT GPS models -- I guess it makes too much sense to rely on a pilot to check his/her own data. Instead we now have to pay Garmin to do it for us...

Regards,

Mark Sletten

 

[prkaye]

So, you could simply not keep the GNS 430 database up to date

I wondered about this... in Canada, don't our systems have be checked and signed every 2 years or something (and an IFR flight review with an examiner every 2 years?). In that case, isn't the inspector likely to insist that the databases on any IFR equipment be up-to-date?

 

[Kevin Horton]

I wondered about this... in Canada, don't our systems have be checked and signed every 2 years or something (and an IFR flight review with an examiner every 2 years?). In that case, isn't the inspector likely to insist that the databases on any IFR equipment be up-to-date?

There are required checks of altitude encoder, altimeter, etc. But there are no required periodic checks of IFR GPS equipment.

Yes, you would need to do an instrument rating ride every two years, and the examiner will want to see a GPS approach, if the aircraft is so equipped. But, you do the IFR ride in a rented aircraft if you preferred, or you could update the GPS database in your aircraft (assuming the examiner is prepared to ride in one of those "dangerous" amateur-built aircraft).

 

[groucho]

Phil - Another option - Practically speaking, the IFR GPS is most useful for enroute navigation, as it allows you to go direct.

Most controllers I've will let you "use" a VFR GPS to go direct, but you have to word your request so that it's legal. Here's an example...

Let's assume you have a a VOR that you're using to legally navigate the IFR skies. Let's also assume that your destination is way out of VOR range. Say you're flying from DFW to CLL (College Station), but your clearance is DFW-LOA-CLL. You, of course, don't want to overfly LOA (Leona). Since you can only legally ask for direct to VOR stations that you can recieve (since all you have is a VOR), do this:

1. Enter direct to CLL in your VFR GPS.
2. Note the bearing to CLL (161deg)
3. Make sure that course won't take you too low over any big rocks
4. Say to the controller: "Center, RV 901JH request heading 161, when able direct College Station"
5. Controller thinks: "Cool, this guy knows what he's doing & I can give him a short cut."
6. Controller says: "RV 901JH cleared as requested"
7. Everyone's happy

Hope this helps...I'm off to chase rocks.

 

[w1curtis]

I'm convinced this is one of the big reasons Garmin chose to cease production on the former UPSAT GPS products, including 480 series. The 480 was originally a UPSAT product. Embarassingly, UPSAT beat Garmin by a couple of years with a WAAS-compatible product in the 480. Garmin rolled the 480 (and all other UPSAT products) into its product lineup when it purchased UPSAT a few years back.

My old UPSAT GX-60's FAA-approved manual stated as long as the operator insured the data for the waypoints of intended use for a particular flight were current then he/she needn't update the database. In other words, it was perfectly legal to fly with a database that hadn't been updated for years as long as you checked the waypoints you intended to use before IFR flight.

To make it even easier, I coincided my yearly $200 database update (! -- no way will you EVER see a Garmin database that cheap) with my Air Chart System subscription. Air Charts issues a list on a 28-day cycle detailing all the chart changes since the date of issue. That meant I could just look at the list to determine the non-current info in my database -- very convenient.

Mark,

Huh? Firstly the price of the GPS database is not from Garmin it is from Jeppesen. Equating database policy to Garmin discontinuing the 480 is quite a strech.

Do you really want to check that every waypoint, SID, STAR and approach on every route of you IFR flight is in and updated prior to every flight? What if you get an updated clearance? Even if the manual says you can do this, do you really want to rely on possibly outdated information. Procedures (SID, STARS and approach) change and get updated quite frequently. This is why, despite what the manual said, prudent UPSAT pilots that fly IFR, subscribed to the database update service from Jeppessen.

Since you did not do the monthly subscription, I assume this $200 yearly was once per year. This $200 (one time?) update for your GX-60 from Jeppesen is actually more than a one time Garmin 430 WAAS Full US ($120 using Internet) update. If you are going to fly IFR, the $230 difference for the monthly subscription is a small price to pay for that "peace of mind."

Too bad Garmin ceased production on all UPSAT GPS models -- I guess it makes too much sense to rely on a pilot to check his/her own data. Instead we now have to pay Garmin to do it for us...

Not sure how this makes sense since I can easily see a thorough check of the database against the current data prior to an IFR flight, can easily exceed the time required for the flight. To those of us where time is the only commodity where we cannot get more of, this does NOT make sense.

 

[Msletten]

Thoughts clarified.

Mark,

Huh? Firstly the price of the GPS database is not from Garmin it is from Jeppesen. Equating database policy to Garmin discontinuing the 480 is quite a strech.

It's not only about Garmin making money, it's about requiring the owner to update. With the old UPSAT equipment updating wasn't REQUIRED -- with Garmin equipment it is. Eliminating UPSAT equipment is CYA for Garmin. And you're right, I don't know the details of the (if any) financial arrangement between Jeppesen and Garmin.

Do you really want to check that every waypoint, SID, STAR and approach on every route of you IFR flight is in and updated prior to every flight?

That's the beauty of the Air Chart system... you don't have to check every waypoint, you look at the list of what's changed. If a waypoint you wish to use is on the list then you can't use the one in your database. You simply find another route, or update the database. It never took me more that 30 - 45 seconds to compare the change list to my flight plan.

What if you get an updated clearance?

You carry the list with you (you have to anyway for your Air Charts to be legal). If the controller issues a route with a waypoint on the change list you don't have to (can't) accept it. I marked my charts with the changed info so I could tell by looking at the chart whether I could accept a clearance. Besides, unless the geographic location of a waypoint changes it really doesn't matter. Most changes to established waypoints have to do with freqs and shutdowns. The GPS doesn't care about freqs, and if the navaid is shutdown a controller isn't gonna give you clearance to it anyway.

This $200 (one time?) update for your GX-60 from Jeppesen is actually more than a one time Garmin 430 WAAS Full US ($120 using Internet) update.

That's a moot point because it has never been legal to use a Garmin GPS in the fashion I described for a UPSAT box. You cannot use a Garmin IFR GPS for IFR unless the database is up to date. That means possibly paying for an update each time before you use the box for IFR, or paying for the annual subscription.

This WAS one of the reasons I opted for a UPSAT box when I made the purchase decision lo those many years ago. IIRC, back then an annual subscription for the Garmin stuff was over $500 -- and I think then you purchased from Garmin even tho it was a Jeppesen database.

I know the cost for updates has been coming down lately. Maybe because Jeppesen cut Garmin out as the middleman? I don't know... I also don't know what a one-time update for the UPSAT stuff costs now, but $120 for the Garmin is pretty cheap. Of course, a one-time update for your Garmin doesn't do you much good...

Thanks for clarifing my thinking on the subject!

Regards,

Mark

 

[w1curtis]

Mark,

I think I see your economic logic now, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I see it.

Garmin has never offered the databases for their panel mount units. They have only offered the database for their portable units--$35 per update or also available as annual subscription. The database for the panel mount units have only been available from Jeppesen.

The prices have not actually come down, what has changed is that the expensive part of delivering the database---physically mailing out a new chip every month, has been replaced with the Internet. I'm sure there is some poor (or rich in this case) soul out there still opting for the mail in update for ~$700 per month. A few web servers have replaced the many hands that use to mail out chips every month. Jeppesen is the one that is raping us at these prices for "warmed over" government data just as XM, WSI are doing with satellite weather. That's even more expensive than NavData at $30 or $60 per month, $360 and $720 per year respectively.

When some add up the various subscription costs for the various whiz bang devices (GPS data, chart data, XM, terrain, etc) in their panels, the monthly costs could buy a lot of avgas.

 

[dhammer]

Jeppesen

FYI - Jeppesen is now a subsidiary of Boeing Commercial Aviation Services, a unit of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. That may help you understand their thinking on pricing. In that world $10K is a roundoff error.

 

[Kevin Horton]

That's a moot point because it has never been legal to use a Garmin GPS in the fashion I described for a UPSAT box. You cannot use a Garmin IFR GPS for IFR unless the database is up to date. That means possibly paying for an update each time before you use the box for IFR, or paying for the annual subscription.

Where is this restriction requiring the database in the Garmin GPS mounted in amateur-built aircraft published? Did this come from the template AFM Supplement that Garmin provides? We don't have an AFM, nor are we required to follow the suggested limitations in the AFM Supplement template that Garmin provides. The various requirements for IFR use of GPS don't specify manufacturer name, so the same requirements on database currency apply to all manufacturers.

 

[Msletten]

Veddy eentrestink...

The various requirements for IFR use of GPS don't specify manufacturer name, so the same requirements on database currency apply to all manufacturers.

That's a very interesting viewpoint.

Are you saying a general FAR restriction to ensure the database is up to date is the only applicable guidance for IFR GPS use by experimental aircraft? Do you know if the FAR specifies a method of ensuring an up to date database?

I wonder... have you discussed this with your local FSDO? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm just wondering if this is your opinion or the FAA's position.

If this is just your opinion I'd be very interested to hear the FAA's take on this, but I believe this might be a case of "don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer."

Regards,

Mark

 

[John Clark]

From the FAA...

AIM 1-1-19b3(b) Database Currency (1) In many receivers, an up-datable database is used for navigation fixes, airports and instrument procedures. These databases must be maintained to the current update for IFR operations, but no such requirement exists for VFR use. (2) However,...

AIM 1-1-19g Equipment and Database Requirements - For IFR Operations "All approach procedures to be flown must be retrievable from the current airborne navigation database..."

AC 90-100, U.S. TERMINAL AND EN ROUTE AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV) OPERATIONS, paragraph 8a(3): The onboard navigation data must be current and appropriate for the region of intended operation and must include the navigation aids, waypoints, and relevant coded terminal airspace procedures for the departure, arrival, and alternate airfields.

NOTE: Navigation databases are expected to be current for the duration of the flight. If the AIRAC cycle will change during flight, operators and pilots should establish procedures to ensure the accuracy of navigation data, including suitability of navigation facilities used to define the routes and procedures for flight. Traditionally, this has been accomplished by verifying electronic data against paper products. One acceptable means is to compare aeronautical charts (new and old) to verify navigation fixes prior to dispatch. If an amended chart is published for the procedure, the database must not be used to conduct the operation."
Published instrument procedures and routes are incorporated by reference into 14 CFR Part 95 and 14 CFR Part 97, are "law." They are "effective" only during the AIRAC cycle dates specified on the enroute chart/TPP covers or on the side of the chart when printed from the digital-TPP. If you are using a published procedure before or after the dates specified on the chart under IFR, you are technically in violation of the law.

 

[Kevin Horton]

Are you saying a general FAR restriction to ensure the database is up to date is the only applicable guidance for IFR GPS use by experimental aircraft? Do you know if the FAR specifies a method of ensuring an up to date database?

I wonder... have you discussed this with your local FSDO? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm just wondering if this is your opinion or the FAA's position.

If this is just your opinion I'd be very interested to hear the FAA's take on this, but I believe this might be a case of "don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer."

I'm in Canada, so I don't have a FSDO, nor does Phil who started this thread. But, if you ask your FSDO, you'll likely get different answers, not all of them correct, depending on how well they know the material that the FAA has published. The FAA material contradicts itself, which makes it even more difficult. For example, if you look in the AIM, the section that discusses VFR use of GPS says "These databases must be maintained to the current update for IFR operation, but no such requirement exists for VFR use". But, the same AIM chapter, in the section that discusses IFR use of GPS has table 1-1-6 which covers the details for different uses in the IFR system. For enroute and terminal use in IFR, footnote 2 says "Requires verification of data for correctness if database is expired".

The situation in Canada is slightly more restrictive. Up here the database must be current for GPS approaches, or use of the GPS for terminal procedures. But for IFR enroute use, the database may be expired. I'm not suggesting this is a good idea - I am just saying that it would be legal.

 

[alcladrv]

Most controllers I've will let you "use" a VFR GPS to go direct, but you have to word your request so that it's legal. Here's an example...

Let's assume you have a a VOR that you're using to legally navigate the IFR skies. Let's also assume that your destination is way out of VOR range. Say you're flying from DFW to CLL (College Station), but your clearance is DFW-LOA-CLL. You, of course, don't want to overfly LOA (Leona). Since you can only legally ask for direct to VOR stations that you can recieve (since all you have is a VOR), do this:

1. Enter direct to CLL in your VFR GPS.
2. Note the bearing to CLL (161deg)
3. Make sure that course won't take you too low over any big rocks
4. Say to the controller: "Center, RV 901JH request heading 161, when able direct College Station"
5. Controller thinks: "Cool, this guy knows what he's doing & I can give him a short cut."
6. Controller says: "RV 901JH cleared as requested"
7. Everyone's happy

Hope this helps...I'm off to chase rocks.

Groucho's method works well. It is the identical method that high altitude jet airliners used to get more direct routings in the decades before gps. Distant VORs were as much as 800 to 1000 nm distant.

When necessary, I file IFR as an RV7/U. On numerous occasions, I've been asked directly by Cleveland Center controllers, "Do you have a gps onboard?".
I respond, "Affirmative."
Controller asked, "Where do want to go direct to?"
I said, "Direct destination."
Controller said, "Cleared direct destination." Destination was 165 nm away and NOT near a VOR station.

Recently, I had the hots for an IFR gps. We all know you can talk yourself into and justify most anything. But for now, who needs it. I'll wait for most of the airports I frequent to be inaccessible via a VOR or ILS approach. The appears to be quite a few years away.

Of course all of the Garmin x96 models work well, but a $250 Garmin GPSMap76 works just as good for me after adding some aviation waypoints, specifically VORs. Curiously, all of the medium to major sized airports are already in the basemap, without having to add them separately.

Mike