G3X Approaches for "monitoring purposes only" (without external navigator)

[MechaSteve]

The G3X manual is very emphatically clear that the approach function in the G3X touch, G3X and G300 are "for monitoring purposes only".

However, it does not make it clear at all what is meant by "monitoring purposes".

Can these approaches be used to demonstrate how an instrument approach works, i.e. for introductory portions of instrument instruction?

Is this simply an issue of the difference between "Navigating with a VFR WAAS GPS" and a true "using a IFR WAAS GPS Navigator"?

Is the G3X still acceptable to use for training in "control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to the instruments" in § 61.109?

I get the general idea, "you need an external navigator for IFR", but I am curious where the practical limit is for these edge cases.

 

[BobTurner]

As a cfii, I would say the answer to all your questions is ‘yes’ - as long as you maintain vfr, and always use the word ‘practice’ (e.g., “Norcal, rv123 requesting a practice rnav 29R approach at Stockton”). If you are under the hood you may log it as simulated instrument time (don’t forget to log the name of your safety pilot). Now, when it comes time for the checkride, the FAA requires that only ‘approved’ (TSO’d) gps navigators be used to demonstrate a gps approach.

 

[BCP Boys]

I'm not sure how you can do a practice LPV approach with only a G3X ?

I guess you could do "practice" non-precision approach (okay don't go down the rabbit hole that an LPV is not a precision approach). I guess you could do some practices with the G3X but there obviously you will not have any vertical guidance.

 

[BobTurner]

I'm not sure how you can do a practice LPV approach with only a G3X ?

For that you’d have to trade the G3X in for a GRT Hx with the optional gps approach software. But alas, it’s not TSO’d, either, so it’s also vfr use only.

 

[BCP Boys]

For that you’d have to trade the G3X in for a GRT Hx with the optional gps approach software. But alas, it’s not TSO’d, either, so it’s also vfr use only.

Yeah, I was being a bit funny. Obviously you can't do any legal approaches with only the G3X or even the GRT or Dynon. Does not matter, still need a TSOed GPS.

 

[g3xpert]

The G3X manual is very emphatically clear that the approach function in the G3X touch, G3X and G300 are "for monitoring purposes only".

However, it does not make it clear at all what is meant by "monitoring purposes".

Can these approaches be used to demonstrate how an instrument approach works, i.e. for introductory portions of instrument instruction?

Is this simply an issue of the difference between "Navigating with a VFR WAAS GPS" and a true "using a IFR WAAS GPS Navigator"?

Is the G3X still acceptable to use for training in "control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to the instruments" in § 61.109?

I get the general idea, "you need an external navigator for IFR", but I am curious where the practical limit is for these edge cases.

The G3X Touch can load the final approach fix and the runway to set up a simple approach. Only an IFR GPS Navigator allows you to load a full approach procedure with vertical guidance.

Thanks,

Justin

 

[Draker]

The G3X Touch can load the final approach fix and the runway to set up a simple approach. Only an IFR GPS Navigator allows you to load a full approach procedure with vertical guidance.

Good, concise summary, thanks a lot. That would have been helpful a few weeks ago. Before my last (VFR) Flight Review, the instructor I went up with suggested "we can do a practice IFR approach (in VFR) if you want and if you can figure out how to load an approach into your G3X". I was ashamed that I didn't even know if that was possible on my system without an IFR navigator, and now I know.

It would be a really nice feature, but I bet it's a case where the software is possible but the lawyers won't let it happen.

 

[Brantel]

Good, concise summary, thanks a lot. That would have been helpful a few weeks ago. Before my last (VFR) Flight Review, the instructor I went up with suggested "we can do a practice IFR approach (in VFR) if you want and if you can figure out how to load an approach into your G3X". I was ashamed that I didn't even know if that was possible on my system without an IFR navigator, and now I know.

It would be a really nice feature, but I bet it's a case where the software is possible but the lawyers won't let it happen.

It’s been the same for both versions of the G3X and all of Garmin portables back so far that I lost track. It would be irresponsible for them to allow a full approach on a non certified box because some yahoo out there would be trying to cut corners and cost and use it for real approaches in real IMC. His family would then sue Garmin after he kill’s himself and possibly others doing so.

 

[BobTurner]

It would be irresponsible for them to allow a full approach on a non certified box because some yahoo out there would be trying to cut corners and cost and use it for real approaches in real IMC. His family would then sue Garmin after he kill’s himself and possibly others doing so.

I think that’s harsh. Remember, many (most?) of us are viewing that TSO’d data on non-TSO’d efis boxes, non-TSO’d CDI’s and OBS’s, not to mention the non-TSO’d attitude indicators and DG’s. Would you ban all non-TSO’d GPS boxes feeding efis boxes because sooner or later some yahoo out there will use it in IMC and hit a mountain? BTW, there are some efis boxes out there that rely on a non-TSO’d gps to reach a long term attitude solution. I’d think that’s pretty important for ifr. And of course, a lot of us are using non-TSO’d gps to power adsb-out signals. My real complaint is the absurdly high cost of getting a TSO, things like management controls and parts traceability push up the cost while providing little real benefit. And, BTW, GRT will sell you everything you need to turn your EFIS into a GPS approach box, for far less than a TSO’d gps nav. They are very clear that it is not TSO’d, and is not legal for IFR use. I’d guess that with sufficient (vfr) data, they were hoping for an alternative (to TSO) faa approval, but, so far, the FAA won’t go along.

 

[Brantel]

I think that’s harsh. Remember, many (most?) of us are viewing that TSO’d data on non-TSO’d efis boxes, non-TSO’d CDI’s and OBS’s, not to mention the non-TSO’d attitude indicators and DG’s. Would you ban all non-TSO’d GPS boxes feeding efis boxes because sooner or later some yahoo out there will use it in IMC and hit a mountain? BTW, there are some efis boxes out there that rely on a non-TSO’d gps to reach a long term attitude solution. I’d think that’s pretty important for ifr. And of course, a lot of us are using non-TSO’d gps to power adsb-out signals. My real complaint is the absurdly high cost of getting a TSO, things like management controls and parts traceability push up the cost while providing little real benefit. And, BTW, GRT will sell you everything you need to turn your EFIS into a GPS approach box, for far less than a TSO’d gps nav. They are very clear that it is not TSO’d, and is not legal for IFR use. I’d guess that with sufficient (vfr) data, they were hoping for an alternative (to TSO) faa approval, but, so far, the FAA won’t go along.

Don’t put words in my mouth! All of what you said has nothing to do with what I said. What good is GRT’s offering if you can’t legally use it to replace the real thing but for nothing other than an emergency backup?

I have been made aware that Garmin did add the full procedures to the Aera 760 (lateral only) so I guess Garmin is relaxing their stance on this. Regardless, it can’t be used legally for actual primary navigation in IMC.

Its the source of the data that matters to me. Ask yourself if you want to be sharing IMC airspace with someone that is illegally using a VFR only data source to navigate. I know I sure don't!