Seansull said:
Is anyone familair with the NexNav OEM TSO GPS box?
http://www.accord-technology.com/nexnav_mini.html

It can also be found on the NavWorx site here...
http://www.navworx.com/navworx_store/GPS_Receivers/

It looks like MGL is going to support this with their new iEFIS. I am guessing with the addition of a NAV and COM radio could you use this setup for IFR GPS approaches?

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Short answer to your questions above...

Firstly, I have heard of them. Nice folks with a nice box. But, last time I checked it was way expensive at around $3k. Even if it were legal, by the time you kludge all the misc parts together, you still don't have a box legal for primary navigation (see TSO 146) and costs almost as much as the big boxes. This brings me to your second question.

For IFR approaches the answer is not really but kinda sorta barely; because boxes like the NexNav are only certified to class 1. That means they have no vertical guidance, only lateral (LNAV). These boxes are marketed primarily for ADSB, etc... not for GPS precision approaches or primary navigation. Even with an EFIS (except for a few higher end ones) you still are missing a fair amount of data, processes, software and functionality over something like a 430/480/530/GTN which are class 3 and meet both TSO 145 and 146 therefore allowing for LPV approaches and primary navigation.

In the end, just not a good or functional solution for what you were thinking. Sorry I don't have better news!

Just my 2 cents as usual...

Cheers,
Stein
 
Last edited:
Thanks Stein!

I figured there would be a something missing, just wasn't sure what. I appreciate your input!
 
Stein,

Is there any way to outfit an IFR ship without putting anything in the panel with a "G" on it?

I ask because I had this discussion with another builder who is not a fan of Garmin.
 
N941WR said:
Stein,

Is there any way to outfit an IFR ship without putting anything in the panel with a "G" on it?

I ask because I had this discussion with another builder who is not a fan of Garmin.
Click to expand...



look up Cobham, Avidyn, Honeywell, Aspen...

you will find G is a bargain.
 
RVnoob said:
look up Cobham, Avidyn, Honeywell, Aspen...

you will find G is a bargain.
Click to expand...

Bare IFR? Of course there are other ways - you could do ADF, NDB, triple INS, VOR/ILS, etc, but for precision GPS Garmin is a relative bargain for what you get (as RVnoob mentioned). If a friend is anti-Garmin it's because he either had a bad experience or something personal. Compared to Avidyne, Honeywell, or Rockwell, the Garmin stuff is indeed a relative bargain. It's all a matter of perspective coupled with knowledge.

Cheers,
Stein
 
I don't think that new ADF/NDB equipment makes sense. However, VOR/ILS is still a viable system and probably will be for many years....especially ILS.

You just lose approaches to hundreds or thousands of airports that only have a GPS approach.
 
That is the boat I'm in Ron

So far it has not been a problem. Every place I want to go has had an airport with at least one VOR, LOC or ILS approach. I know the FAA wants get away from ground based systems but like you, I don't think that is going to happen soon.

Bob Axsom
 
Bob's Got A Point

With "some" elimination of VORs, the FAA is trying to cut costs, not add to them. The lion's share of GPS approaches are overlays, where the FAA has not had to re-survey by merely drop a GPS approach over the data they already have for that particular airport. Does a WAAS GPS make sense going forward? You bet, but like Bob, I can function in the system with a single VOR and very little loss of fuctionality in terms of the airports I can and can't get into. That's changing, but slowly.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP
 
The problem with many of the VHF-based (VOR/ILS/LOC) approaches that are out there these days is that they depend on a DME (you may substitute GPS) fix at some point. At least in our neck of the woods, many significant destinations end up with very few usable approaches unless you have either the DME or GPS approach capability. That's the thing to be careful of when choosing.
 
terrykohler said:
With "some" elimination of VORs, the FAA is trying to cut costs, not add to them. The lion's share of GPS approaches are overlays, where the FAA has not had to re-survey by merely drop a GPS approach over the data they already have for that particular airport. Does a WAAS GPS make sense going forward? You bet, but like Bob, I can function in the system with a single VOR and very little loss of fuctionality in terms of the airports I can and can't get into. That's changing, but slowly.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP
Click to expand...

While this may have been the case some time ago when the early implementations were indeed overlays, it's simply not a true or accurate statement anymore....as WAAS GPS approaches outnumber ILS's over two to one.

There are over twice as many published GPS approaches as ILS's so the overlay thing has been surpassed. There are tons of small airports that could never support a ground based approach that now have GPS and new approaches will likely continue to be added at a tremendous ratio compared to radio based ones. The cost to "survey" and implement GPS is literally pennies on the dollar compared to radio based one. Sure they won't dissapear tomorrow, but it's the way things are going as even the big iron implement RNAV/RNP proc's.

I'm not arguing that an SL30 won't suffice, but it'll hobble you as to what's out there going forward.

My 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein
 
You must log in or register to reply here.