There is no difference between a non-certified GPS/WAAS as are provided built-in to the Garmin G3x and any other certified GPS/WAAS when used to land in IFR. They both operate the same and are accurate to within 3 meters.
There is no difference between a non-certified GPS/WAAS as are provided built-in to the Garmin G3x and any other certified GPS/WAAS when used to land in IFR. They both operate the same and are accurate to within 3 meters.
Goes the G3X has GPS/LNAV or GPS/LPV approaches coded in its database?
Peter wrote:
I think we will need a reference for that,
To be correct here (as we should 
) it’s you who shall provide a reference for your comment, since you were first.
carlmeek wrote:
This narrowed it down to pretty much a Jabiru or an RV-10.
FWIW there would be the D140, a complete different animal with huge payload, but slower. I can see why you have chosen the RV though…
carlmeek wrote:
Other personal factors are that I fly on a LAPL, so IFR isn’t relevant at all.
carlmeek wrote:
VP-X Power Management,
Even though you don’t want IFR capability, I personally decided NOT to fit a VPX because the LAA have explicitly stated that they will not consider any a/c fitted with a VPX for IFR approval.
IMHO, an LAA permit A/C with IFR approval will command significantly higher prices on the s/h market when the time comes to sell.
Of course, that’s if IFR approval in permit A/C ever happens at all……………………….
USFlyer wrote:
There is no difference between a non-certified GPS/WAAS as are provided built-in to the Garmin G3x and any other certified GPS/WAAS when used to land in IFR. They both operate the same and are accurate to within 3 meters.
From a hardware perspective, that is completely true.
Sadly, the powers that be in airspace-land don’t seem to be interested in the idea of non-TSO’d navigation kit for IFR. I suppose it [rightfully] makes makes a mockery of the whole RNAV/PRNAV thing.
For the PRNAV world with reduced separation I can kind of see their point: uncertified planes are OK with the authorities because the risk posed to 3rd parties is minimal. When an error in the kit could cause a loss of separation in controlled airspace (which always has some extra risk associated, even if it is small), then they feel that certification is necessary.
jwoolard wrote:
Sadly, the powers that be in airspace-land don’t seem to be interested in the idea of non-TSO’d navigation kit for IFR
This is perfectly well explained somewhere at the EAA site. There is no requirement for navigational equipment to be certified, there is only airspace requirement for the equipment to follow the certification specifications regarding performance. In principle you can make a GPS at home, if you somehow can show the performance requirements are met. I would believe that to test the performance will cost way more than anything you can purchase, so no one bothers.
Does the G3X has GPS/LNAV or GPS/LPV approaches coded in its database?
I am checking out the Greek scenario, BTW. It would make a good study.
No, the G3X database does not contain approaches or any other terminal procedures, and the software has no way to select them.
For this, you have to install an ARINC-429 capable IFR GPS device. Then the G3X works just like any other PFD, displaying the NAV signals from the IFR GPS.
Exactly; that’s what I was getting at. Without GPS approaches, the WAAS capability is moot. You don’t need WAAS for enroute nav. My old KLN94 does 100% of European enroute IFR requirements.
There seems to be zero movement in this area. Somebody decided not to support approaches in uncertified units. The reasons would be interesting to find out. We had a thread e.g. here
Are there any uncertified COM/NAV radios with ILS capability?
