Yeager wrote:
Glass cockpit avionics does not add any benefit from a legal point of view in terms of navigation and IFR flight plan filing. So, no benefit from that point and possibly the view of the OP.
A few years ago we discussed here a tragic CFIT somewhere in the Alps. Was that a TB20? Had the plane been equipped with SV capable glass, the pilot would be here with us debating this subject. Unfortunately all he could rely on was a paper map and steam gauges. The map not necessarily crystal clear with respect to MSA markings.
In addition to that, modern avionics will give you pseudo ILS to any runway in the database, in case of G brand, down to 50ft over the runway threshold, GPS based, rock solid.
The point I’m trying to make is that the OP might not be aware of the benefits of the equipment. I certainly wasn’t at his stage of flying.
Do you have the details?
It would take solid steel balls to fly in mountains using SV. All you need is loss of GPS.
I’m way too much of a chicken to fly over mountains in a single engine anyway!!
172driver wrote:
Further – and importantly – an engine overhaul / swap is a known quantity in terms of AMUs. A panel upgrade? Not so much. I’ve been through both in our club as board member and, as @Mooney says, I’d buy an airplane with a perfect panel (ok, doesn’t exist, but you know what I mean and this one comes prett darn close) and a run out engine any day of the week.
Having handled a couple of avionics upgrades and several engine overhauls as aeroclub president, I agree entirely!
RV14 wrote:
RV1413-Jan-24 08:2198
Yeager wrote:
“Glass cockpit avionics does not add any benefit from a legal point of view in terms of navigation and IFR flight plan filing. So, no benefit from that point and possibly the view of the OP.”A few years ago we discussed here a tragic CFIT somewhere in the Alps. Was that a TB20? Had the plane been equipped with SV capable glass, the pilot would be here with us debating this subject. Unfortunately all he could rely on was a paper map and steam gauges. The map not necessarily crystal clear with respect to MSA markings.
In addition to that, modern avionics will give you pseudo ILS to any runway in the database, in case of G brand, down to 50ft over the runway threshold, GPS based, rock solid.The point I’m trying to make is that the OP might not be aware of the benefits of the equipment. I certainly wasn’t at his stage of flying.
I agree RV14 – it´s worth highlighting the benefits of the equipment.
As I pointed out, SVS (3D) or any other terrain/obstacle ND (2D) doesn´t add any benefits from a legal point of view, as I mentioned above.
The SVS is indisputable an excellent position awareness tool, particularly operating in geographical location with mountains (terrain) at night time and in IMC. It´s one, if not “the”, most valuable avionics tools I reference (“reference only”!) on the Gulfstreams. Many high tech avionics are great enhancements and obviously assist in raising awareness, but it equally requires the attention to the fact that they are mostly “not approved” as primary means of navigation, thus the threat that some operators (read pilots) start using these as a primary source of navigation and/or rely on their data as a means to “push further”.
Strict adherence to IFR and/or VFR procedures according to actual conditions (IMC/VMC) should remain the primary path to CFIT avoidance. You do NOT need SVS on your airplane to conduct a safe flight – so many other factors play a much larger role in CFIT. A pilot with the right mentals tools, via training, mentoring and personality, is more important than any equipment money can buy. This is not to say that any well educated, professional (or not), experienced pilot (or crew) can not make fatal decisions – but it´s very rare!
The pseudo ILS you mention, you can get even on SkyDemon (and the GPS data source can be certified) and just like the Garmin (or any other brand) it is just like with the SVS, another “not approved” tool – that is nice to have – but boy, you do need to understand the pitfalls that comes with these pseudo tools.
I totally understand why it’s more important to have the right avionics as the cost to install them is unpredictable.
However, my priorities are different. I want an aircraft that can fly immediately in solid condition – aka the basics so i can do loads of hours and a bit of fun. The most important being the engine. I only know how to fly on steam gauges anyway and it will do me a lot of good to do solid hour building and instrument training on them before moving to something more complex.
I’m not going to fly over mountains or seas (beyond the channel) or anything risky.
In future I may move to a twin anyway – I don’t plan to own a tb20 forever.
So, in this context it is the engine that matters the most not the avionics. Obviously an auto pilot is a must but I would not trade a g500 sv for a shagged engine AND pay top dollar for it. That’s the way I see it..
I do appreciate your feedback though its much appreciated I’ve learned a lot already on this forum
D-ESPJ, a great friend of mine, was doing VFR in IMC, just like most people who hit granite.
He had a CPL /IR, like me, and should not have been doing that. SV is not the solution.
I’ve done lots of VFR in IMC. In Europe you often have to. But not in mountains.
The OP has the right priority.
However, my priorities are different. I want an aircraft that can fly immediately in solid condition – aka the basics so i can do loads of hours and a bit of fun. The most important being the engine. I only know how to fly on steam gauges anyway and it will do me a lot of good to do solid hour building and instrument training on them before moving to something more complex.
Given this POV, think this plane is massive overkill for the priorities expressed. The engine situation is fine when viewed in the context of a plane that costs many times as much as an engine overhaul, and is going to be a complex thing to maintain anyway. And it’s got years of like left in it. However if the goal is more basic, the plane needs to be more basic and honestly I think it’ll be more fun if it is.
The cost numbers really don’t have to be so extreme, unless you want them to be. My plane cost $35K and has worked fine for me for 13 years so far. I’ve recently been offered another like it that is a ‘higher spec’ version, owned by a friend who has had it for 50 years, enjoyed it a lot, recently put a new engine in it. but is now aging out of aviation. If I do the upgrade it’ll be a hassle for me, but with selling one, buying the other and upgrading the avionics the total expense will only be something like $25K more factoring in that he wants me to take on his legacy. What’s required to bring the numbers down to that level in aviation is knowledge, experience and developing relationships. All that is the product of getting in the game and getting a solid plane that serves one’s needs, not so much one’s as-yet uninformed dreams. From there one thing can lead to another.
Peter wrote:
In the European Part M System
A TB20 is not exposed to the “European Part M System”.
https://www.euroga.org/articles/misc/easa-part-ml-pilot-owner-maintenance
