Fitting a Garmin 400 or 400W to a PA28

It’s not just the UK… but the usual pattern is that few non UK people want to badmouth their own country on EuroGA, whereas Brits are very happy to I hear privately that lots of shops on the mainland won’t touch this with a 20ft (7m) bargepole. And one can see why – reason above.

In most cases you have a choice of maybe 1 shop within easy driving range, and if you upset them (if you cite some law, they will tell you to never come back – I posted one email here) you have to go much further out. And as this chap found out, you should never use a shop which is really far away (same story with getting work done on a house when you aren’t around).

The problem is the Ops inspector that inspects the maintenance out fit. They disagree with the regulations and it doesn’t matter what you say if the maintenance outfit doesn’t do what their Ops inspector says they pull you approval.

Yes, the CAA have as much power here as the local police have over a gun shop.

But this applies to a school, much more than to a private owner who merely needs to find an installer.

Bathman wrote:

As peter says the without Form 1 concession doen’t exist in the UK

It’s one thing that UK avionics shops generally may not want to accept owner-approved parts, but AFAIU, all EASA regulations were incorporated into UK law with the Brexit act.

Peter have a look at the minima at Kemble or Sywell there basically 500 feet.

Sure, nonprecision IAP design… nothing to do with 500ft min and everything to do with getting the CAA old farts to approve it, against their will. It’s like Planning; if you spend another 10k on a consultant, you get a better result, but you have to decide to cut your losses at some point, and these airports get minimal extra income due to the IAP. The exception disproves the “rule” – see EGKA which is below 500ft (on 02).

The Sywell IAP is near-useless anyway. The CAA really didn’t want Sywell getting an IAP – see here because they are doing it without an ATCO and one on the approach approved pay grade, which breaks “all the rules” on airspace management job demarcation.

There is a similar reason (but I can’t quite remember why) that the Scilly Iises still have a timed NDB approach.

The only customer of relevance being able to scud run all the way at 500ft (which they do frequently). Also those planes are old wrecks which probably can’t fly a GPS IAP. Otherwise, that route is worth millions a year (look at how much was spent on Lands End airport, and they try hard to keep GA out of there despite that.

If they got a GPS approach the minima would be higher.

No evidence for that, sorry

for example, you will get +V on it, which is very convenient

Exactly – +V remains despite the Brussels block, but it would do anyway with latest firmware because that gives you +V without EGNOS. Worth noting that you get +V only where a GPS IAP is published. However I suspect +V is of no use to the OP since this is a school scenario and I doubt they train +V in the IMCR.

Please keep this thread on the topic. A better thread for minima is here so please post material on why we have “useless” minima in so many places, there. Nobody who actually knows (i.e. who paid the consultant and the CAA) is going to be posting details openly (it is their £££ business) but it is known that a lot of the time the overriding DH is due to low assumed climb performance on the missed approach.

Bathman wrote:

Sorry I don’t have the option of a 430W its a 400 or a 400W. I have edited my first post.

So I can fit a 400 or a 400W.

The “W” is a bit moot here in the UK at the moment as 3D GPS approaches are no longer available. Also the CAA have put a 500 foot minima on all GPS approaches outside controlled airspace so the LNAV and LPV minima are basically the same anyway.

On 430W, for example, you will get +V on it, which is very convenient. Plus it is not going to be the 0.3nm TSE all the way down – it will be angular, improving closer to the threshold (despite SoL not longer used in the UK). Please also note that despite LPV not being available in the UK (still can used in Europe!), LNAV/VNAV is still OK (not to be confused with BaroVNAV). All the vertical features are available on W-device only.
Otherwise, what is the difference between 400W+installation cost (including paperwork and antennae) vs GTN650 + installation cost (including paperwork and antennae)?
It might be not that big…

The parts without EASA form 1 concession is not generally accepted by avionics shops, especially UK ones, especially of the plane is used for training. It deprives them of revenue, and if they accept it they are likely to charge more for the installation. It works if using a freelance installer, off the books, of course.

There are firms who for a fee will generate an EASA 1 form for you. It needs to be an EASA 145 company with the right approval scope. The cost varies, from a few hundred, to a few k for bigger parts like propellers.

Also the CAA have put a 500 foot minima on all GPS approaches outside controlled airspace

I would like to see a reference for that I call complete BS on it, but it is the typical sort of stuff found on the flight training scene.

As to whether LPV is useful, well it depends. Within the UK, no, because Brussels has blocked the UK using the signal for aviation, due to brexit It works on Alderney etc. But I fly abroad a lot and have never cancelled or changed a single flight due to not having LPV. So my KLN94 + KMD550 continue to be perfectly fine.

Every panel mounted GPS should have an AFMS to be legal, IFR or not, but historically this has been mostly ignored. Anyway there is no such thing as a “VFR GPS” (with the odd exception of the ancient KMD150); the GNS boxes have no “VFR” config. The KLN94 does (the UK CAA inspector set it in 2002 when I got my plane new, saying the KLN94 is not legal for IFR ) but nobody uses it these days.

Bathman wrote:

Sorry I don’t have the option of a 430W its a 400 or a 400W. I have edited my first post.

I don’t know how the situation with the repairability of the 400 units are. The normal 430 unit can’t be repaired by Garmin anymore. So in any case, I’d go W.

It doesn’t matter that the local approaches won’t do that, the W units are also the much more recent and much better units from CPU/technical point. They have more memory, are faster, have larger databases (the non-W units often have incomplete databases) and so on. Non-W units are cheap because they have large inherent risks, such as they become worthless if something breaks.

Also I reckon that the UK won’t stay out of the 3D approaches for ever. It’s a political b.s. happening which eventually will get resolved.

So I’d definitly go for the 400W if it is to be one of those two. But the much better solution would be a Garmin 175 or similar. Compare the prices before you act. The 175 is relatively inexpensive, seeing that some avionic shops still ask about £ 4-5k for a 400W. The 175 I saw quoted is between £3600 and 4500 (without VAT/with VAT).

Bathman wrote:

Obliviously I need to generate an EASA form 1 for the unit but that should be just a case of post it off and write a cheque out as it was all working when pulled from an N reg aircraft.

You don’t need an EASA form 1, but you do need an STC or modification approval. See this blog post about when you don’t need an EASA form 1.

Does anyone know if a separate annunciator panel would be require?

That depends on the STC/mod approval.