Apollo/UPSAT SL60 in IFR

[Charlie]

I'm looking at buying a plane that has an SL60 GPS/Comm in the panel.
It is placarded for VFR use only.

Since the unit is certified for IFR enroute and terminal ops
(according to the documentation), what is involved in getting it
certified for IFR use in this particular plane (a Grumman)? Is it
database updates, interference tests, or other?

If certified for IFR enroute, can a unit like this be used a
substitute for DME?

[C J Campbell]

To get your SL60 approach certified it has to meet several installation
requirements that might be missing on your plane. These include GPS/Nav
indicators, a CDI coupled to the GPS, and other stuff. You can get this
checked fairly easily at an avionics shop -- but get a couple of opinions
because I have found that avionics shops vary widely on what they think is
required. Most of them think all kinds of extra stuff is required and they
will want to install about $5000 worth of equipment in the plane. You should
be able to find one that has a little more realistic idea of the
installation requirements. For example, when I wanted to replace my KLN 89
with a KLN 94 two avionics shops wanted to add another indicator, replace my
CDI/glideslope with another one, replace the DG, and charge $850 for an STC
approval. The whole thing would have run over $10,000. The shop I used knew
that there was already a blanket STC for the plane that specified the
instruments I already had. All I needed was an additional indicator light.
Their bid was less than half that of the others. The STC for the
installation also has to specify that it is approach certified. You will
also probably have to conduct flight tests for both en route and approach
certification. Once it is certified for en route, you can substituted it for
any nav aid, including DME, for en route purposes. The AIM has a good table
that shows what you can and can't do with each type of GPS certification.
You have to either keep your database current or refer to current paper
references.

"Charlie" <c182_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8c7ac0b4.01081...@posting.google.com...

[Charlie]

> To get your SL60 approach certified it has to meet several installation

The SL60 is enroute and terminal approved only, which is all I'm
looking for. Basically, I want to be able to avoid installing a DME
and to be able to navigate direct and fly the approach the traditional
way (ie not with the GPS).

> requirements that might be missing on your plane. These include GPS/Nav
> indicators, a CDI coupled to the GPS, and other stuff. You can get this

Is the CDI also required for en-route?

> any nav aid, including DME, for en route purposes. The AIM has a good table
> that shows what you can and can't do with each type of GPS certification.
> You have to either keep your database current or refer to current paper
> references.

Thanks, I'll check that out.

[Newps]

Charlie wrote:

> > To get your SL60 approach certified it has to meet several installation
>
> The SL60 is enroute and terminal approved only, which is all I'm
> looking for. Basically, I want to be able to avoid installing a DME
> and to be able to navigate direct and fly the approach the traditional
> way (ie not with the GPS).

I have the GX55 and we would be in the same boat. You need to have a CDI for the
GPS and it has to be on the pilots side of the radios. Since I only have one
navcomm and therefore only one CDI for that I will be putting in a switch so the
CDI can show either the navcomm or the GPS. When you have a moving map the
requirement to have a CDI is really an assinine one, who the hell is going to
look at a CDI when the line on the map is there? You don't have a map so a CDI
may be more beneficial to you. Although the CDI on the radio would work just
fine.

>
>
> > requirements that might be missing on your plane. These include GPS/Nav
> > indicators,

This is not required for enroute/terminal.

> a CDI coupled to the GPS, and other stuff. You can get this
>
> Is the CDI also required for en-route?

Yes.

>
>
> > any nav aid, including DME, for en route purposes. The AIM has a good table
> > that shows what you can and can't do with each type of GPS certification.
> > You have to either keep your database current or refer to current paper
> > references.

You can do everything with your GPS except fly NDB approaches. You can use it to
be the DME on a VOR/DME approach, for example.

[BARR DOUG]

>
>I have the GX55 and we would be in the same boat. You need to have a CDI for the
>GPS and it has to be on the pilots side of the radios. Since I only have one
>navcomm and therefore only one CDI for that I will be putting in a switch so the
>CDI can show either the navcomm or the GPS. When you have a moving map the
>requirement to have a CDI is really an assinine one, who the hell is going to

You appear to NOT UNDERSTAND something about how an IFR GPS works in OBS or
HOLD mode.

The CDI is both desirable and necessary!!! If you put the unit in OBS mode,
the active waypoint will show an infinitely long line going both TO the
waypoint and FROM the waypoint. If you twist the OBS dial, this line will
rotate around the active waypoint, on the degree setting that is set in the
OBS.

Important, useful and necessary feature of an IFR GPS, and one you wont see
in VFR units.

You can make the airport the active waypoint, put in the runway heading and
you have a (approximate), runway centerline. If you use an intersection that
is lined up with the runway (outer marker), or the DME/ILS as a waypoint then
you will have an EXACT runway centerline, if you put the degrees of the
approach in the OBS (assuming the course lines up with the runway).

[Dan Luke]

"BARR DOUG" wrote:
> The CDI is both desirable and necessary!!! If you put the unit in OBS
mode,
> the active waypoint will show an infinitely long line going both TO the
> waypoint and FROM the waypoint. If you twist the OBS dial, this line will
> rotate around the active waypoint, on the degree setting that is set in
the
> OBS.

Also, unless you have a GPSS setup, the CDI is necessary to drive an
autopilot in GPS NAV mode.
--
Dan
N9387D at BFM

[Roger Halstead]

"C J Campbell" <christopherc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bV%f7.38099$vW2.17...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...

I thought that there were at least three types of GPS when it comes to
certification.
Those that are certifiable for enroute, those that are certifiable up
through approach, and those that are not certifiable. It appears to me that
this thread has appeared to indicate that you can get virtually any unit
installed as a certified installation. I may be wrong, but I don't think
that is correct.

I was under the impression that first the unit has to be certifiable, and
then the installation certified (which makes them so darn expensive)

> To get your SL60 approach certified it has to meet several installation
> requirements that might be missing on your plane. These include GPS/Nav
> indicators, a CDI coupled to the GPS, and other stuff. You can get this
> checked fairly easily at an avionics shop -- but get a couple of opinions
> because I have found that avionics shops vary widely on what they think is
> required. Most of them think all kinds of extra stuff is required and they
> will want to install about $5000 worth of equipment in the plane. You
should
> be able to find one that has a little more realistic idea of the
> installation requirements. For example, when I wanted to replace my KLN 89
> with a KLN 94 two avionics shops wanted to add another indicator, replace
my
> CDI/glideslope with another one, replace the DG, and charge $850 for an
STC
> approval. The whole thing would have run over $10,000.

Lord, I was quoted $14,000 for a installed and certified 530 on a special
sale.
Course, the whole garmin stack was nearr $30,000 as it includeed two
approache certified GPS units.

Roger Halstead (K8RI)
WWW.RogerHalstead.com
N833R, World's Oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

> The shop I used knew
> that there was already a blanket STC for the plane that specified the
> instruments I already had. All I needed was an additional indicator light.
> Their bid was less than half that of the others. The STC for the
> installation also has to specify that it is approach certified. You will
> also probably have to conduct flight tests for both en route and approach
> certification. Once it is certified for en route, you can substituted it
for
> any nav aid, including DME, for en route purposes.

I do that with a plain old yoke mounted hand held...But I have the RNAV
instruments (and use them) to double check what the GPS says. I almost
always fly by the hand held and just use the RNAV (KNS-80) as backup.

> The AIM has a good table
> that shows what you can and can't do with each type of GPS certification.
> You have to either keep your database current or refer to current paper
> references.
>
> "Charlie" <c182_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8c7ac0b4.01081...@posting.google.com...
> > I'm looking at buying a plane that has an SL60 GPS/Comm in the panel.
> > It is placarded for VFR use only.
> >
> > Since the unit is certified for IFR enroute and terminal ops

The unit is "certifiable" for such ops. It's the installation that is
either certified or not.

> > (according to the documentation), what is involved in getting it
> > certified for IFR use in this particular plane (a Grumman)? Is it
> > database updates, interference tests, or other?
> >

IF the unit is truly certifiable, then the shop checks it against sources of
interferrence.
It's my understanding that they and you, or one of their pilots takes it out
and they fly some approaches and check it against your other radios for
interferrence. With multiple coms (both receive and transmitt) that can run
to a lot of time. That is what makes the installation so expensive.

> > If certified for IFR enroute, can a unit like this be used a
> > substitute for DME?

Once certified it can be used in place of any instrument that it is capable
of replacing, but you do need the panel mount CDI.

It could be simple and it may not be possible...I don't know for that unit
and the equipment you have in the airplane.

--
Roger Halstead (K8RI)
WWW.RogerHalstead.com
N833R, World's Oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>

[Craig Prouse]

>> When you have a moving map the
>> requirement to have a CDI is really an assinine one, who the hell is going to

>> look at a CDI when the line on the map is there?

Well, I do, and it seems to work a lot better for me that way. I don't
think I can zoom in close enough on the moving map to get the course
guidance accuracy that I get with a CDI. On the final segment the CDI gives
a full-scale deflection at 0.3 nm off course. Even if I could get the map
to provide that level of resolution, it would require additional
button-pushing during the approach.

> The CDI is both desirable and necessary!!! If you put the unit in OBS mode,
> the active waypoint will show an infinitely long line going both TO the
> waypoint and FROM the waypoint. If you twist the OBS dial, this line will
> rotate around the active waypoint, on the degree setting that is set in the
> OBS.

Or you can use the front panel controls on the GPS to dial in the desired
OBS course. There is no operational reason why you would have to use an
external OBS to make this setting.

If I'm flying an ILS, I have the localizer presented on NAV1. I can't
simultaneously use the NAV1 OBS to drive the GPS, but I do want to see the
final approach course on my moving map, and I do want to see the DME
distance on an ILS/DME, so in that case I might select the I-xxx waypoint
and dial in the approach course directly on the GPS front panel.

> Important, useful and necessary feature of an IFR GPS, and one you wont see
> in VFR units.

Except for the connection to an external CDI, the Garmin 195 handheld has
this feature. The VFR-only KLN 89 also has this feature, CDI and all. It
seems like any aviation GPS would be pretty crippled without an OBS hold
mechanism.

> You can make the airport the active waypoint, put in the runway heading and
> you have a (approximate), runway centerline. If you use an intersection that
> is lined up with the runway (outer marker), or the DME/ILS as a waypoint then
> you will have an EXACT runway centerline, if you put the degrees of the
> approach in the OBS (assuming the course lines up with the runway).

The GPS databases now contain DME station waypoints such as I-MRY. The DME
transmitter which is associated with I-MRY is not as close to the localizer
as you might think. It's about 100 meters northwest, closer to the
centerline of 10L than the ILS runway 10R. Also considering that the GPS
rounds the OBS bearing to the nearest integer, and the actual runway in not
so ideally aligned, I think that the I-MRY waypoint is just as "approximate"
as the airport waypoint for any purpose other than DME substitution. I'm
also guessing that I-MRY is not unique in this respect.

Craig

[Newps]

There is a digital CDI on the GX series that registers in 100ths of a mile. You can
leave the map to whatever scale you want and the digits at the bottom, along with an
arrow, tell you how far off course you are.

Craig Prouse wrote:

> >> When you have a moving map the
> >> requirement to have a CDI is really an assinine one, who the hell is going to
> >> look at a CDI when the line on the map is there?
>
> Well, I do, and it seems to work a lot better for me that way. I don't
> think I can zoom in close enough on the moving map to get the course
> guidance accuracy that I get with a CDI. On the final segment the CDI gives
> a full-scale deflection at 0.3 nm off course. Even if I could get the map
> to provide that level of resolution, it would require additional
> button-pushing during the approach.
>
>
>

> Or you can use the front panel controls on the GPS to dial in the desired
> OBS course. There is no operational reason why you would have to use an
> external OBS to make this setting.

My point exactly.

>

[JerryK]

I have a GNS 430 and an Avidyne unit and would not want to use either of
those moving maps in lieu of a CDI. The CDI is a much better indicator than
a map and if you have an HSI, you have all of the info you need for heading,
wind correction, etc. right there.

"Newps" <scn...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B8136A0...@home.com...

[Timothy M. Metzinger]

In article <B7A6AE6B.2160E%cra...@apple.com>, Craig Prouse <cra...@apple.com>
writes:

>The GPS databases now contain DME station waypoints such as I-MRY

Not all of them. The 89B for instance does not contain a bunch of these "nice"
fixes, since there's limited room on the card.
Timothy Metzinger
Commercial Pilot - ASMEL - IA AOPA Project Pilot Mentor
'98 M20J - N1067W
Pipers, Cessnas, Tampicos, Tobagos, and Trinidads at FDK

[C J Campbell]

"Roger Halstead" <rdha...@tm.net> wrote in message
news:WIcg7.656$7d.2...@newshog.newsread.com...

>
> "C J Campbell" <christopherc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bV%f7.38099$vW2.17...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>
> I thought that there were at least three types of GPS when it comes to
> certification.
> Those that are certifiable for enroute, those that are certifiable up
> through approach, and those that are not certifiable. It appears to me
that
> this thread has appeared to indicate that you can get virtually any unit
> installed as a certified installation. I may be wrong, but I don't think
> that is correct.
>

No, you are right. I thought the SL60 was approach certifiable.

> I was under the impression that first the unit has to be certifiable, and
> then the installation certified (which makes them so darn expensive)
>

That is basically true, but certifiying some installations can be as simple
as sticking the STC in your POH. Others require a whole series of flight
tests.

> > To get your SL60 approach certified it has to meet several installation
> > requirements that might be missing on your plane. These include GPS/Nav
> > indicators, a CDI coupled to the GPS, and other stuff. You can get this
> > checked fairly easily at an avionics shop -- but get a couple of
opinions
> > because I have found that avionics shops vary widely on what they think
is
> > required. Most of them think all kinds of extra stuff is required and
they
> > will want to install about $5000 worth of equipment in the plane. You
> should
> > be able to find one that has a little more realistic idea of the
> > installation requirements. For example, when I wanted to replace my KLN
89
> > with a KLN 94 two avionics shops wanted to add another indicator,
replace
> my
> > CDI/glideslope with another one, replace the DG, and charge $850 for an
> STC
> > approval. The whole thing would have run over $10,000.
>
> Lord, I was quoted $14,000 for a installed and certified 530 on a special
> sale

Well, the 530 is a lot nicer than the KLN 94.

[Claude & Verna Allen]

Do you mean GX60 ? As far as I know, there are no IFR certified UPS SL60's.
As far as certified is concerned, yes, both the GX50 and 60 can be certified
for both approach and enroute, but each installation must be certified. An
IFR certified box does not automatically mean the installation is
certified.........

Claude

"Charlie" <c182_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8c7ac0b4.01081...@posting.google.com...

[Craig Prouse]

"Timothy M. Metzinger" <tmetz...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010821084508...@nso-mv.aol.com...

> In article <B7A6AE6B.2160E%cra...@apple.com>, Craig Prouse
<cra...@apple.com>
> writes:

> >The GPS databases now contain DME station waypoints such as I-MRY

> Not all of them. The 89B for instance does not contain a bunch of these
"nice"
> fixes, since there's limited room on the card.

I've always found the ones I've looked for, so I don't know of any
counterexamples; you?

Any that you know are missing, any idea of the criteria that would be used
to pick and choose, or related literature? I just recall AOPA's press
release of 11/2000, which indicated that "all" LOC/DME type approaches are
now flyable with GPS in lieu of DME, and "all" the I-xxx waypoints that have
ever interested me I've been able to find in the database.

Craig

[Timothy M. Metzinger]

In article <9m0tj0$p2u$1...@news.apple.com>, "Craig Prouse" <cra...@apple.com>
writes:

>Any that you know are missing, any idea of the criteria that would be used

>to pick and choose, or related literature? I just recall AOPA's press
>release of 11/2000, which indicated that "all" LOC/DME type approaches are
>now flyable with GPS in lieu of DME, and "all" the I-xxx waypoints that have
>ever interested me I've been able to find in the database.

Hmmm.... I'll go look again.... do you enter I-XXX, or just IXXX? I may not
have put in the dash, now that I think of it.

[Dan Luke]

"Timothy M. Metzinger" wrote:
> >Any that you know are missing, any idea of the criteria that would be
used
> >to pick and choose, or related literature? I just recall AOPA's press
> >release of 11/2000, which indicated that "all" LOC/DME type approaches
are
> >now flyable with GPS in lieu of DME, and "all" the I-xxx waypoints that
have
> >ever interested me I've been able to find in the database.
>
> Hmmm.... I'll go look again.... do you enter I-XXX, or just IXXX? I may
not
> have put in the dash, now that I think of it.

The KLN90B doesn't use the dash. I've been putting direct IRUJ in so I can
identify HECKL intersection on the ILS to BFM ever since LOC-DMEs were added
to the data base. Isn't the data base the same for the '89B and the '90B?

[Craig Prouse]

in article 20010823095200...@nso-mq.aol.com, Timothy M.
Metzinger at tmetz...@aol.comnospam wrote on 8/23/01 6:52 AM:

On the KLN 89B, there is no dash. I just refer to it that way for
consistency with the charted localizer names. They are in the database as
"intersections" with four letter names beginning with the letter "I".

Craig

[Ray Bengen]

I have a SL60 and It's DME-substitutable with certain caveats like
LOC-DME's must be in the database etc, but otherwise, for all enroute
and terminal, it's IFR fine. I've never seen one with a VFR-only
placard, and I think that may be wrong i.e. you can absolutely file /G
as long as you don't attempt a GPS approach with it. For anyone who
wishes to flame me on this, I had it verified with the FAA even though
it says "and approach capability" in the AIM.

HTH

Ray

[Stan Prevost]

"Ray Bengen" <r...@bengen.com> wrote in message
news:3B86BC62...@bengen.com...

> I have a SL60 and It's DME-substitutable with certain caveats like
> LOC-DME's must be in the database etc, but otherwise, for all enroute
> and terminal, it's IFR fine. I've never seen one with a VFR-only
> placard, and I think that may be wrong i.e. you can absolutely file /G
> as long as you don't attempt a GPS approach with it. For anyone who
> wishes to flame me on this, I had it verified with the FAA even though
> it says "and approach capability" in the AIM.
>

.

What do you mean about /G and the AIM saying "and approach capability" ?
/G says nothing about approach capability. I haven't followed this thread
closely so I may have missed something.

Stan