Why Upgrade to Approach-Approved IFR GPS?
Richard Kaplan
of discussion (perhaps mostly with a different viewpoint
from mine).... but this question has come up enough times
with pilots I have met that I think it would be worthwhile
discussing in this forum.
Until precision GPS approaches are approved, what operational
advantage does one currently get from
installing an IFR approach-approved GPS versus
a handheld GPS? If one wants to be legal for direct
navigation, how about an old KNS-80 RNAV unit plus
a handheld GPS? Or a KNS-80 and dirt-cheap Loran?
As a corollary to this question, suppose one is upgrading
to IFR GPS a plane which already has a Loran... why remove
the Loran if there is enough panel room? Is not Loran an
excellent backup to GPS (yes, I know, "everyone" says
Loran fails in bad weather, but in the real world it
seems as if such failures are quite rare and certainly
much less common than ADF problems near thunderstorms).
As background to this, let me say that I otherwise
fly a very well-equipped/capable P210: radar, Strikefinder,
tubocharged, pressurized, TKS known-ice, KNS-80, Northstar M1
Loran, Electric and Vacuum AI/DG, Fuel Totalizer, JPI 700
engine analyzer. If there is anything missing that I am tempted to
install in the plane, it is a panel-mount weather datalink system
for NEXRAD imaging. But as much as I fly IFR quite a bit,
when the chips are down the ILS still gets me home. The
KNS-80 makes me legal to file direct ("backed up," if I wish,
from my Loran and/or handheld GPS). I am reluctant to
install an IFR GPS because, among other reasons, I presume
that even "upgradable" units will carry a steep pricetag
when precision GPS hardware is available. For now,
my plane has just about as much utility as any general
aviation IFR bird, yet I have no approach-approved GPS.
And I do not yearn for one either.
As an interesting aside, when I have given
instrument instruction to pilots who own approach-approved
GPS units, very often I find that they feel the
time/effort to maintain approach currency is not
worth the marginal added utility over a traditional
approach. I have seen more than one pilot set up the
GPS "Direct To" a VOR and then fly a VOR approach using
GPS for backup, even when a GPS approach were available.
Yes, I try to encourage pilots to be familiar with all
installed equipment... but the fact remains that I suspect
there are very few GA pilots out there actually flying
GPS approaches.
Another way of looking at this is to ask how/why
people are putting $10,000 approach-approved
GPS units into $40,000 4-place trainers. How
can this make any economic sense? Why is there
not more backlash from IFR pilots asking why
IFR GPS is being pushed so strongly by the
aviation media/FAA when the price is so high
as a percentage of the average general
aviation aicraft's value?
I am interested in other thoughts on this.
----
Richard Kaplan, CFII
rka...@umrpc.com
www.umrpc.com/p210
Stan Prevost
controversial part). Then you can dump the KNS80 unless you are depending
on it for ILS.
As NDBs are phased out (rapidly), GPS approaches are taking their place at
small airports.
"Richard Kaplan" <rka...@umrpc.com> wrote in message
news:f8550f51.02030...@posting.google.com...
Russ MacDonald
$5000.
Initially, the main reason I wanted the IFR Approach capability was for use
at smaller airports that didn't have published approaches until GPS came
along. I soon found that it is imperative to fully learn a GPS before
trying to use it for an approach in IMC. They are not simple to learn, and
take a lot of practice. However, once you learn them thoroughly, they
become simple to use.
After using the GX50 for a while, I found that GPS approaches are generally
just as accurate (laterally) as the precision approaches, and the
situational awareness is far superior. So, as long as I have the ceiling, I
always request the GPS approach even when there is an ILS. Then, if the
ceiling is too low for GPS, I use the ILS with the GPS in the approach mode
for situational awareness as I track the localizer.
There is certainly nothing wrong with Loran, and I suspect it will be around
a lot longer than most people think. It is a great backup to GPS, and may
end up outliving the VOR airways system. I used a Loran for six or seven
years, and never had any problems with it quitting in bad weather. Most of
those types of problems were caused by not having a good set of properly
grounded static wicks.
Russ, CFI
"Richard Kaplan" <rka...@umrpc.com> wrote in message
news:f8550f51.02030...@posting.google.com...
Howard Nelson
being phased out for GPS approaches. Don't think I have the currency skill
or blind faith to ever attempt an "actual" NDB approach.
McGregor
personally don't care much for GPS approaches, give me an ILS any day.
Boring, safe and easy.
You're pressurized. Stay high and stick with your M1 (if you can't find a
cheap M3) and spend the money on the NEXRAD data link. It'll be Summer
before you know it.
I flew a VFR only M1 Loran through alot of precip and never had it blink (I
was on the West Coast, so maybe the signal strength was better). When I got
cleared direct to a LOM for an ILS approach, did I use the M1? Hell, yes. As
a back-up to the wandering-all-over-the-place ADF, of course.
As an experiment, I flew half an IFR trip at MEA using my K170B and the
other half using the Loran (AP coupled to both). I had my hand-held GPS
turned on with the "tracking" function enabled so you could see the aircraft
course. Man, the VOR course was full of long, curving, turns (and I swear
the needles were centered the whole time, really!) - and of course the Loran
course was a series of straight lines. This was from Colorado through
Wyoming into Utah.
Having said all that (and because I just drank some coffee and have nervous
fingers anyway) there are benefits to GPS approachs, although they're
airport specific. At Eagle Colorado, for example, you can come in via a
series of angled legs that miss high terrain directly downwind of the
runway. Hard to do with traditional navaids.
And at my home airport (which didn't have an approach before GPS - we'd come
in on the ILS to SLC Int'l and cancel when we "saw" the airport underneath
us), the new approach gets us down to 300'/1 sm.
Ron Rosenfeld
>Until precision GPS approaches are approved, what operational
>advantage does one currently get from
>installing an IFR approach-approved GPS versus
>a handheld GPS?
It depends on where you are based.
When I was based at ASH, there would be minimal advantage.
But now that I am based at EPM, I would love to add an approach certified
GPS as it would give me significantly lower MDA's (like about 240' lower).
That would be enough to be able to get home without having to land a 2-2
1/2 hour car drive away.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
Wayne Sweet
put the plane in service 10 years ago, Apollo 2001 GPS and now an Apollo
GX50. Here in California, it seems airports without any approaches are
getting GPS approaches. An approach approved GPS automatically increases the
precision (decreases the pep-to-peg range) of the CDI as the approach
progresses. This drives my bargain-basement single axis NAVAID (experimental
only) autopilot so that in the event I'm dead tired and fly the approach
with it, I have no doubt it would bring me to the MAP without fail. Either
GPS I have had have not failed once while in-flight (even though on several
occasions, I received a RAIM warning). The LORAN packed it in several times
here on the west coast and in the southwest. Also I find flying the ILS much
easier with a GPS, since it gives bearing and track to the airport which
helps in preventing those wild heading changes inside the MM in hopes of
capturing the LOC. In fact I spend more of my scan on the GPS then on the
ILS CDI. This is true whether or not the airport has a GPS approach to the
ILS runway.
Wayne
"Richard Kaplan" <rka...@umrpc.com> wrote in message
news:f8550f51.02030...@posting.google.com...
Steven P. McNicoll
> navigation, how about an old KNS-80 RNAV unit plus
> a handheld GPS?
>
A handheld GPS without an old KNS80 would be just as legal.
Wayne Sweet
Wayne
"Wayne Sweet" <swee...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3c81...@MAIL.mhogaming.com...
Dan Luke
> Until precision GPS approaches are approved, what operational
> advantage does one currently get from
> installing an IFR approach-approved GPS versus
> a handheld GPS?
Are you serious? Take a look through a current set of approach plates.
There are lots of new GPS approaches that get you lower than the older
non-precision approaches. There are lots of new GPS approaches to
airports that used to have none.
> If one wants to be legal for direct
> navigation, how about an old KNS-80 RNAV unit plus
> a handheld GPS? Or a KNS-80 and dirt-cheap Loran?
A tuna sandwich on rye is legal for direct navigation.
> As a corollary to this question, suppose one is upgrading
> to IFR GPS a plane which already has a Loran... why remove
> the Loran if there is enough panel room?
Why indeed?
> The
> KNS-80 makes me legal to file direct ("backed up," if I wish,
> from my Loran and/or handheld GPS).
You'd be legal without it.
> I am reluctant to
> install an IFR GPS because, among other reasons, I presume
> that even "upgradable" units will carry a steep pricetag
> when precision GPS hardware is available. For now,
> my plane has just about as much utility as any general
> aviation IFR bird, yet I have no approach-approved GPS.
> And I do not yearn for one either.
You don't really NEED one with the KNS-80 - for now.
> I have seen more than one pilot set up the
> GPS "Direct To" a VOR and then fly a VOR approach using
> GPS for backup, even when a GPS approach were available.
That's fine if there IS a VOR.
> Yes, I try to encourage pilots to be familiar with all
> installed equipment... but the fact remains that I suspect
> there are very few GA pilots out there actually flying
> GPS approaches.
Hmm. I hear them around here frequently.
> Another way of looking at this is to ask how/why
> people are putting $10,000 approach-approved
> GPS units into $40,000 4-place trainers. How
> can this make any economic sense?
Economic sense? We're talking about airplanes, for God's sake!
> Why is there
> not more backlash from IFR pilots asking why
> IFR GPS is being pushed so strongly by the
> aviation media/FAA when the price is so high
> as a percentage of the average general
> aviation aicraft's value?
In my case, becauseI like GPS much better than any other nav gear I've
used. I would not own an IFR airplane without it.
--
Dan
N9387D at BFM
Mike Rapoport
Mike
MU-2
"Richard Kaplan" <rka...@umrpc.com> wrote in message
news:f8550f51.02030...@posting.google.com...
Tom Rosback
1.) Lower minima at many airports, especially those previously served only
with an off-airport NDB. Check Farmington, MO., for example.
2.) GPS only approaches at airports that were previously unserved by any
approach.
"Richard Kaplan" <rka...@umrpc.com> wrote in message
news:f8550f51.02030...@posting.google.com...
Mark Manes
ILS's.
I have no ADF in my plane so a Garmin 155XL seemed like the best bet at
the time (about 4 yrs ago). Now I can file IFR to all the smaller airports
since
every one of them that I fly to that have an NDP approach also have GPS
approaches. The minimums on a lot of the GPS approaches are less than for
NDB approaches. And I have GPSS (which adds roll stearing) so my STEC
autopilot will fly the newer RNAV(GPS) approaches hands off.
--
Mark Manes
WC5I
Skylane N3387R
.
>
>
Doug
autopilot. Program in the route, sit back, monitor the AI, and watch the
show! (Well, not quite that easy, but....).
Also, with an IFR GPS, I get backup altitude, Ground Speed, and essentially
a backup (electric DG).
As for approaches, if they are available, I always take the ILS.
C J Campbell
and is useable as either a DME or NDB, plus it is very good for en route
nav.
Cary N. Mariash
Not everyone has an airplane as well equiped as yours. My 310 was an
avionics nightmare. The ADF was removed because it did not work (the
same for the old Lear autopilot). I had a KX 170 in addition to the KX
170B. The 170 was no longer legal for general transmission, and could
not pick up half the stations needed (on the 25 and 75 frequencies).
The Narco DME would only receive half the stations, and Narco would not
let my local avioinics shop work on it. They wanted $100 to just look
at it and then there was no guarantee if they could repair it.
Based on all the above, it seemed to me that the only thing I could do
to keep flying IFR was to remove the DME and the KX 170 and put in a
Garmin 430. This gave me the DME needed for the approach into my home
airport, the GPS approach needed into the airport that works on my
plane, and gave me another radio with ILS capability. Are you saying
that you think I did wrong?
Cary
In article <f8550f51.02030...@posting.google.com>, Richard
Kaplan <rka...@umrpc.com> wrote:
...snip...
>
> Another way of looking at this is to ask how/why
> people are putting $10,000 approach-approved
> GPS units into $40,000 4-place trainers. How
> can this make any economic sense? Why is there
> not more backlash from IFR pilots asking why
> IFR GPS is being pushed so strongly by the
> aviation media/FAA when the price is so high
> as a percentage of the average general
> aviation aicraft's value?
>
> I am interested in other thoughts on this.
>
>
> ----
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
> rka...@umrpc.com
> www.umrpc.com/p210
--
Cary N. Mariash
CP-ASMEL/IA
N500QB (1958 C310B)
Dave Barnhart
> people are putting $10,000 approach-approved
> GPS units into $40,000 4-place trainers
Sounds like you are alluding to the Garmin 430. If that's the case, they are
installing not just a GPS. They are also installing a COM, VOR/LOC, and GS.
People have been spending $10 K or more on an avionics stack for as long as I
can remember. The only difference is that now they can get most of the
functionality in a single box.
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
RV-6 N601DB
Roger Halstead
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:u838lrs...@corp.supernews.com...
How so?
TheKNS80 meets the requirements for being able to fly direct.
The Hand held doesn't even though it's more accurate than the KNS80. (except
for the ILS part)
I can legally use the hand held to fly direct (as I have the KNS80 as
primary) The hand held is after all, strictly for "situational awareness".
--
Roger (K8RI EN73)
WWW.RogerHalstead.com
N833R, World's Oldest Debonair? S#CD-2
>
>
>
>
Roger Halstead
Made sense to me as it gets really close inside the MM. <:-))
--
Roger (K8RI EN73)
WWW.RogerHalstead.com
N833R, World's Oldest Debonair? S#CD-2
Steven P. McNicoll
"Roger Halstead" <rdha...@tm.net> wrote in message
news:kQxg8.328$rc.3...@monger.newsread.com...
>
> How so?
>
Because such usage violates no law.
>
> TheKNS80 meets the requirements for being able to fly direct.
>
What are the requirements for being able to fly direct?
>
> The Hand held doesn't even though it's more accurate than the KNS80.
(except
> for the ILS part)
>
Why doesn't a handheld meet these "requirements"?
>
> I can legally use the hand held to fly direct (as I have the KNS80 as
> primary) The hand held is after all, strictly for "situational awareness".
>
It's perfectly legal to use a handheld GPS for IFR direct enroute
navigation.
JerryK
ILS then you gain no advantage. Since I would take an ILS over the GPS
unless the GPS was to a runway that was better aligned with the wind or
somehow had better approach conditions. However, if you go to airports that
have GPS only or GPS overlay approaches, the GPS offers a lot of advantages.
I would much rather fly a GPS overlay than an underlying NDB approach.
Regarding Loran, I have had my M1 die enough times that I sure would not
have wanted to fly the thing in IMC. It seemed like anytime I was in IMC
and there were any storms the unit would die. Maybe I was just unlucky.
On updating a $40,000 trainer with a GOS, I can't see that one also.
However, I suspect these GPS/COM units will continue to drop in price.
jerry
Richard Kaplan
news:<030320021409139408%ca...@lenti.med.umn.edu>...
> Not everyone has an airplane as well equiped as yours. My 310 was an
> avionics nightmare. The ADF was removed because it did not work (the
> plane, and gave me another radio with ILS capability. Are you saying
> that you think I did wrong?
I think that makes a lot of sense, both since the GPS
replaced a lot of other marginally functional avionics
and because the new avionics still were reasonably priced
vs. the total value of a 310.
Overall, I think this thread has been useful... I agree
that IFR GPS installations also make sense for people who
have home bases or frequent destinations to airports
served only by a GPS (or GPS/NDB) approach.
At the same time, I remain comfortable for now
without the GPS, since very few airports I fly into have
only a GPS or GPS/NDB approach... Next time someone ribs me
about "still" having the Loran, I shall nonetheless
plan to stick with my current panel.
Although I think what you did makes a lot of sense,
I am still not so sure it would make sense
for a $30,000 or $40,000 Cessna 172 -- and I have
heard of any number of owners of such airplanes
who have spend $10K to $15K in IFR GPS equipment...
in that case, I think basic used VOR/ILS equipment
(and maybe a VFR GPS or used Loran) makes more
economic sense... but as once poster said, none of
aviation makes economic sense so we all make our
own decisions.
This certainly has been useful as a thread in any event
to see how others think about this.
Richard Kaplan
> Because such usage violates no law.
91.205 requires "navigational equipment appropriate
to the ground facilities to be used."
Putting aside for the moment that GPS is space-based,
I think the FAA will interpret this to mean that
any navigational equipment you propose to meet
this requirement should be approved for use
in your aircraft via an STC or as part of the
aircraft's original type certificate. You may
choose to interpret this otherwise, but the
FAA is not likely to agree with you.
> > TheKNS80 meets the requirements for being able to fly direct.
> What are the requirements for being able to fly direct?
Approval for this purpose in the equipment's STC (or TSO).
> Why doesn't a handheld meet these "requirements"?
A handheld has no STC or TSO. It basically does not
exist as far as 91.205 is concerned.
> It's perfectly legal to use a handheld GPS for IFR direct enroute
> navigation.
Sure it is... as long as the handheld GPS backs up
a KNS-80 or enroute-approved panel GPS or other
equipment STCd for direct enroute navigation.
The handheld GPS is also legal to backup a "vector"
while you are in radar contact.
Doug
91, there is not requirement for IFR flight other than the GRABCARD group.
Now if you are going to do an instrument approach, you need the equipment
required to do the approach.
Perhaps you are thinking of some requirement to fly IFR with a Direct
Clearance where there is no radar coverage.
But for normal direct clearances under radar coverage, there is no more
requirement for navigation equipment than there is anywhere else.
"Richard Kaplan" <rka...@umrpc.com> wrote in message
news:f8550f51.02030...@posting.google.com...
Ron Natalie
> 91.205 requires "navigational equipment appropriate
> to the ground facilities to be used."
So? What ground facilities are being used? Who says you need
any navigation equipment to go direct? You could dead recon it.
You won't get the clearance to go direct unless you're in RADAR
coverage.
> I think the FAA will interpret this to mean that
> any navigational equipment you propose to meet
> this requirement should be approved for use
> in your aircraft via an STC or as part of the
> aircraft's original type certificate.
Gosh, I hope not. There's nothing in the FAR's that implies this
(although some bastard FSDO's try to interpret it that way).
A radio installation is not necessarily a major modification
(which is where the TC/STC/etc... comes into play).
> > > TheKNS80 meets the requirements for being able to fly direct.
> > What are the requirements for being able to fly direct?
>
> Approval for this purpose in the equipment's STC (or TSO).
Chances are you have neither. The KNS-80 is NOT TSO'd. There's
no requirement to have an STC to install one.
Dan Luke
> Putting aside for the moment that GPS is space-based,
> I think the FAA will interpret this to mean that
> any navigational equipment you propose to meet
> this requirement should be approved for use
> in your aircraft via an STC or as part of the
> aircraft's original type certificate. You may
> choose to interpret this otherwise, but the
> FAA is not likely to agree with you.
Baloney.
> > What are the requirements for being able to fly direct?
>
> Approval for this purpose in the equipment's STC (or TSO).
More baloney.
> > Why doesn't a handheld meet these "requirements"?
>
> A handheld has no STC or TSO. It basically does not
> exist as far as 91.205 is concerned.
> Sure it is... as long as the handheld GPS backs up
> a KNS-80 or enroute-approved panel GPS or other
> equipment STCd for direct enroute navigation.
And yet more.
> The handheld GPS is also legal to backup a "vector"
> while you are in radar contact.
"Legal to backup a vector" ??? What planet is that from?.
Roger Halstead
>
> "Roger Halstead" <rdha...@tm.net> wrote in message
> news:kQxg8.328$rc.3...@monger.newsread.com...
> >
> > How so?
> >
>
> Because such usage violates no law.
On an IFR flight plan with no certified equipment for going direct?
>
>
> >
> > TheKNS80 meets the requirements for being able to fly direct.
> >
>
> What are the requirements for being able to fly direct?
IFR?
Having certified equipment capable of allowing the pilot to do so.
>
The hand held works just fine, but it's not certified.
It would be just fine for VFR direct, but I wouldn't think it'd be
acceptable by the FAA for IFR
>
> >
> > The Hand held doesn't even though it's more accurate than the KNS80.
> (except
> > for the ILS part)
> >
>
> Why doesn't a handheld meet these "requirements"?
>
It's not certified and I thought the FAA was kinda funny about flying IFR
without certified equipment.
>
> >
> > I can legally use the hand held to fly direct (as I have the KNS80 as
> > primary) The hand held is after all, strictly for "situational
awareness".
> >
>
> It's perfectly legal to use a handheld GPS for IFR direct enroute
> navigation.
>
How so?
Chad Lemmen
How can a KNS-80 be legally installed then if it has no FAA certification?
If a TSO is not required why does King have them for their Nav/Coms and GPS?
Would you would need a field approval and 337 to install a KNS-80, but
something like a KX155A wouldn't need a 337?
Chad Lemmen
Part 91 rules are "permissive", in that anything not mentioned is permitted,
but the other regs are "restrictive", in that nothing is permitted unless
specified.
I took that from one of John Deakin's articles
http://www.avweb.com/articles/pelperch/pelp0053.html
So under part 91 why couldn't a handheld be used since it doesn't say
anywhere that one can't be used.
Steven P. McNicoll
> to the ground facilities to be used."
>
FAR 91.205 states what instruments and equipment the aircraft must contain
in order to be operated with a standard category U.S. airworthiness
certificate.
It does not state what equipment must actually be used in any specific
operation nor does it prohibit the carriage or use of additional equipment
beyond that specified.
>
> Putting aside for the moment that GPS is space-based,
> I think the FAA will interpret this to mean that
> any navigational equipment you propose to meet
> this requirement should be approved for use
> in your aircraft via an STC or as part of the
> aircraft's original type certificate. You may
> choose to interpret this otherwise, but the
> FAA is not likely to agree with you.
>
Supplemental Type Certificates are issued for major changes in type design
not great enough to require a new type certificate by someone other than the
holder of the type certificate.
>
> Approval for this purpose in the equipment's STC (or TSO).
>
TSOs are not binding unless there is an FAR that requires the TSO to be
complied with, so says FAR 21.601. There are TSOs in existence that cover
the "approval" of a great many things, but you don't have to use "approved"
equipment in any operation unless required to do so by the FARs. What FAR
requires TSO'd equipment for being able to fly direct?
>
> A handheld has no STC or TSO. It basically does not
> exist as far as 91.205 is concerned.
>
Where in FAR 91.205 is the requirement for equipment that complies with an
STC or TSO?
>
> Sure it is... as long as the handheld GPS backs up
> a KNS-80 or enroute-approved panel GPS or other
> equipment STCd for direct enroute navigation.
>
Please cite the applicable regulation.
>
> The handheld GPS is also legal to backup a "vector"
> while you are in radar contact.
>
Backup a "vector"?
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> On an IFR flight plan with no certified equipment for going direct?
>
Yes.
>
> IFR?
> Having certified equipment capable of allowing the pilot to do so.
>
Please cite the applicable regulation.
>
> The hand held works just fine, but it's not certified.
>
What requires it to be certified?
>
> It would be just fine for VFR direct, but I wouldn't think it'd be
> acceptable by the FAA for IFR
>
There is nothing that prohibits the use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute
navigation.
>
> It's not certified and I thought the FAA was kinda funny about flying IFR
> without certified equipment.
>
You thought wrong.
>
> How so?
>
Because there is nothing which prohibits such usage.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Chad Lemmen" <ch...@lemmen.com> wrote in message
news:u870oip...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> How can a KNS-80 be legally installed then if it has no FAA certification?
>
There's a difference between installation and usage. There are a great many
things which have been "approved" by the FAA, but you don't have to use
Ron Natalie
Chad Lemmen wrote:
>
>
> > Chances are you have neither. The KNS-80 is NOT TSO'd. There's
> > no requirement to have an STC to install one.
>
> How can a KNS-80 be legally installed then if it has no FAA certification?
> If a TSO is not required why does King have them for their Nav/Coms and GPS?
Because TSO's are just documentation of meeting a standard. It means different
things for different circumstances (different TSO's, different operatosr). TSO
is by and large meaningless for a part 91 operator with the exception of IFR
GPS's, Transponders, and ELT's.
If you want a TSO'd unit, you'll have to put in the KNS81.
> Would you would need a field approval and 337 to install a KNS-80, but
> something like a KX155A wouldn't need a 337?
Unless you have to do structural work to the panel, neither a KNS-80 or a
KX-155 (neither of which have TSO's, at least in the common flavor) requires
a 337.
Chad Lemmen
> Chad Lemmen wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Chances are you have neither. The KNS-80 is NOT TSO'd. There's
>> > no requirement to have an STC to install one.
>>
>> How can a KNS-80 be legally installed then if it has no FAA certification?
>> If a TSO is not required why does King have them for their Nav/Coms and GPS?
> Because TSO's are just documentation of meeting a standard. It means different
> things for different circumstances (different TSO's, different operatosr). TSO
> is by and large meaningless for a part 91 operator with the exception of IFR
> GPS's, Transponders, and ELT's.
I looked, but can't seem to find where the FAR's talk about installing an IFR
GPS. Which reg talks about that?
> If you want a TSO'd unit, you'll have to put in the KNS81.
>> Would you would need a field approval and 337 to install a KNS-80, but
>> something like a KX155A wouldn't need a 337?
> Unless you have to do structural work to the panel, neither a KNS-80 or a
> KX-155 (neither of which have TSO's, at least in the common flavor) requires
> a 337.
A KX-155 is TSO'd
Chad Lemmen
> Chad Lemmen wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Chances are you have neither. The KNS-80 is NOT TSO'd. There's
>> > no requirement to have an STC to install one.
>>
>> How can a KNS-80 be legally installed then if it has no FAA certification?
>> If a TSO is not required why does King have them for their Nav/Coms and GPS?
> Because TSO's are just documentation of meeting a standard. It means different
> things for different circumstances (different TSO's, different operatosr). TSO
> is by and large meaningless for a part 91 operator with the exception of IFR
> GPS's, Transponders, and ELT's.
Ok operating rules aside what about the regulations for installing stuff into
certificated aircraft. Wouldn't I need TSO'd stuff to be legal to install
in my Cessna 320?
Ron Natalie
Chad Lemmen wrote:
>
>
>
> Ok operating rules aside what about the regulations for installing stuff into
> certificated aircraft. Wouldn't I need TSO'd stuff to be legal to install
> in my Cessna 320?
>
No. A TSO is neither necessary nor sufficient to install it in a given
aircraft.
Ron Natalie
Chad Lemmen wrote:
> I looked, but can't seem to find where the FAR's talk about installing an IFR
> GPS. Which reg talks about that?
The don't. This is just one of those things the FAA makes up as they go along :-)
>
> > If you want a TSO'd unit, you'll have to put in the KNS81.
>
> >> Would you would need a field approval and 337 to install a KNS-80, but
> >> something like a KX155A wouldn't need a 337?
>
> > Unless you have to do structural work to the panel, neither a KNS-80 or a
> > KX-155 (neither of which have TSO's, at least in the common flavor) requires
> > a 337.
>
> A KX-155 is TSO'd
Not all of them.
Tarver Engineering
"Stan Prevost" <spre...@knology.net> wrote in message
news:u82sofa...@corp.supernews.com...
> Pull out that M1 and plug in a M3 until WAAS becomes real (now that's the
> controversial part).
WAAS will never provide any services to the payor.
The price of an IFR GPS install should drop at the completion of the single
sensor AC rewrite.
John
Tarver Engineering
"Ron Natalie" <r...@sensor.com> wrote in message
news:3C82DB9A...@sensor.com...
King is a 21.303 manufacturer and for your owner operated airplane, no
further Part Apporval is necessary.
John
Tarver Engineering
>
> >> 91.205 requires "navigational equipment appropriate
> >> to the ground facilities to be used."
>
> > So? What ground facilities are being used? Who says you need
> > any navigation equipment to go direct? You could dead recon it.
> > You won't get the clearance to go direct unless you're in RADAR
> > coverage.
>
> >> I think the FAA will interpret this to mean that
> >> any navigational equipment you propose to meet
> >> this requirement should be approved for use
> >> in your aircraft via an STC or as part of the
> >> aircraft's original type certificate.
>
> > Gosh, I hope not. There's nothing in the FAR's that implies this
> > (although some bastard FSDO's try to interpret it that way).
> > A radio installation is not necessarily a major modification
> > (which is where the TC/STC/etc... comes into play).
>
> >> > > TheKNS80 meets the requirements for being able to fly direct.
> >> > What are the requirements for being able to fly direct?
> >>
> >> Approval for this purpose in the equipment's STC (or TSO).
>
> > Chances are you have neither. The KNS-80 is NOT TSO'd. There's
> > no requirement to have an STC to install one.
>
> How can a KNS-80 be legally installed then if it has no FAA certification?
King is a 21.303 manufacturer.
> If a TSO is not required why does King have them for their Nav/Coms and
GPS?
Some opertators are not owner operators.
> Would you would need a field approval and 337 to install a KNS-80, but
> something like a KX155A wouldn't need a 337?
One is in accordance with Part 23 changes.
John
Rich Hare
If you want TSO, you go to the KX175B.
Richard Kaplan
> Gosh, I hope not. There's nothing in the FAR's that implies this
> (although some bastard FSDO's try to interpret it that way).
> A radio installation is not necessarily a major modification
> (which is where the TC/STC/etc... comes into play).
My understanding of most FSDO interpretations (maybe not
regs, but certainly important from a practical perspective)
is that if a permanent change is made to the panel or if
a weight/balance change is required, then it is a major
modification and requires a 337 or field approval.
I know I have 337s on my airplane for any radio ever
installed.
Are you saying that I could buy a walkie-talkie set from Radio
Shack and have my mechanic install it in my panel as an intercom
and connect it to my airplane's electrical system
and this would not require a 337 or field approval?
Dylan Smith
>Until precision GPS approaches are approved, what operational
>advantage does one currently get from
>installing an IFR approach-approved GPS versus
>a handheld GPS?
In reality, none (but don't tell the Feds you're shooting approaches
with that handheld!) Also, being able to do IFR starts costing $600/yr
more since you have to keep buying those updates *as well* as all
the charts you're already buying. (Even if you fly a lot, say, 200
hrs/yr, that's an extra $3/hr on your operating costs. If you only
fly 50 hrs/yr, you have an additional $12/hr operating expense...)
On the flip side, a real GPS approach is pretty precise. The VOR 31
approach to my home airport is based on a VOR 16 miles away. When you
get to the MAP, you can be at 540 feet and displaced a mile left of
the runway even though the VOR needle is dead centred (and that's usually
what happens). If you're unfamiliar with the area, even if you break
out at minimums, you probably will never find the airport when
that happens. With the GPS approach, you wind up right on the numbers.
--
Dylan Smith, Houston, TX
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
gross_arrow
>
> On updating a $40,000 trainer with a GOS, I can't see that one also.
> However, I suspect these GPS/COM units will continue to drop in price.
>
> jerry
depends on your objective. i upgraded my ~$20k trainer (c-150) with a $5k
gps -- gx-50 approach certified. my objective was to be able to offer
instrument training to my students, and since gps's have 'arrived', i felt like
this was the best way to do it. (it also lets me fly the c-150 in imc on the
rare occassion i need to do so, but that was not a primary consideration.)
can i justify it economically? no. but it's what i wanted to do, so i did it.
g_a
Stan Gosnell
news:f8550f51.02030...@posting.google.com:
> Until precision GPS approaches are approved, what operational
> advantage does one currently get from
> installing an IFR approach-approved GPS versus
> a handheld GPS?
With the approach-approved GPS, you can fly approaches. I've flown many
GPS approaches, in actual IMC, & given the choice, I'd take the GPS over
the VOR approach every time. The only approach I'd do before a GPS is an
ILS, if I know the weather is down to ILS minimums. A GPS approach is
much, much more precise than a VOR, & orders of magnitude better than an
NDB approach, & with the GPS I have to use (a relatively ancient Trimble,
no moving map, no goodies at all), it easier to fly than a VOR approach, &
infinitely easier than an NDB approach. If you plan on doing actual
instrument approaches, get a GPS. It's worth every penny.
--
Regards,
Stan
Michael
> that IFR GPS installations also make sense for people who
> have home bases or frequent destinations to airports
> served only by a GPS (or GPS/NDB) approach.
I'm not sure I even agree with the GPS/NDB part. Yes, having the GPS
sometimes buys you a little more on mins - I think about 60 ft at my
home field. I have yet to encounter a situation where having the IFR
GPS would have made the difference - and I have flown that approach so
many times I don't even look at the plate anymore. Now if someone
would chart a 300 and 3/4 straight in GPS approach to my home field to
replace the 580 and 1 circling-only monstrosity, I'd be thinking hard
about shelling out the big bucks - it would at least somewhat make
sense on a Twin Comanche.
Let's not forget that as long as you have the legal navaid tuned and
ID'd, and are keeping the needle pointed where it should go, there is
nothing to stop you from using a handheld as 'supplemental'
information. More than once I have gotten in because the handheld GPS
allowed me to fly the approach far more precisely than using the
official course guidance alone.
Bottom line - unless the only approach available is a GPS approach,
the IFR GPS is of no great value.
> At the same time, I remain comfortable for now
> without the GPS, since very few airports I fly into have
> only a GPS or GPS/NDB approach... Next time someone ribs me
> about "still" having the Loran, I shall nonetheless
> plan to stick with my current panel.
I'm with you - I'm keeping the LORAN in my panel as well. With a
LORAN powered from the avionics bus and a GPS with battery backup, I
have redundancy. Silly to give that up without pressing reasons.
Additionally, a LORAN is great for giving a bearing and distance to a
fix not otherwise easy to identify - like the outer marker - without
reprogramming the GPS.
Michael