Is a single Nav radio sufficient?
Under Part.NCO you need PBN GPS for airways and a second NAV terrestrial source – which can actually be a radar control service.
In effect a VOR/LOC and an IFR GPS.
Without a DME you would need a range check from Radar for the GS check on an ILS, and if the missed approach has an NDB then you also need a radar service.
This set up in effect allows RNAV approaches and ILS with radar control. A LOC only would not work without DME.
Arguably a second hand DME is value for money, although in practice 90% of the time an ILS comes with radar service.
Where there is no radar there is likely to be an RNAV.
Eventually Europe will allow GPS overlays.
I would agree that a DME is a good investment, there are some great deals to be had in the second hand market and if the GPS goes down it opens up VOR, LOC / DME approaches……… Oh and I almost forgot NDB/DME.
IMO in some countries in Europe" the horse has already bolted" for gps overlays in favour of specifally developed RNAV/GNSS procedures.
Here NDB’s are certainly being shut down as are VOR’s when they are no longer deemed necessary.
What would be the principal argument to spend up to 100k on a panel?
I’ve thought of upgrading the panel of the Mooney, but with an HSI, GNS530W, EDM700, the ADL150 and an iPad, to me it doesn’t make sense. I guess an upgraded panel with synthetic vision and all provides better overall situational awereness, but it doesn’t realy provide extra capability. Maybe I’ll have an ads-b in and out capable transponder installed and a solid state AI (a G5 maybe), but that’s it.
What makes it worth it?
People are simply fascinated by these electronics and gadgets. Remember this is GA, where nobody is forced to participate, but mostly is people who have a lot of money to spare for their fun and entertainment.
But they often don‘t have quite enough money to buy a new aircraft (which already has all the bells and whistles). But say 150k… many can do that. So they buy an old heap with old avionics and put 100k of screens in there.
To be fair, another point is that many aircraft types (which they have an affection with) are simply not available factory new any longer (M20J, BE33/35, Commander, TB20…).
Bobo wrote:
What makes it worth it?
’Same thing which makes it worth buying the (insert luxury car of your choice) when a modest car will do. Some owners think that by filling the panel with the most modern avionics the plane will be more safe to fly. Not always…
While flying the aforementioned 182 amphibian, which is equipped with everything a pilot could imagine wanting (and a thousand or so pages of manuals to go with it), I found that I had much too much avionic capability in the plane. While flying low VFR off the coast of Finland, toward worsening weather, I elected to turn back to my alternate (Kemi). My alternate airport closed (8PM), and on their frequency, another onward airport (Oulu) replied. The weather was suitable for special VFR which was asked and granted, so back around to continue southbound into less nice weather to Oulu. I was over the Baltic Sea, and seeing windmills on the coast, so I was not turning inland toward Oulu until I was assured of a suitable route, at my special VFR (low) altitude. Though I could see the windmills, there were no obstacle warnings. All databases were right up to date for the trip, so I was perplexed as to why the super avionics were providing me a magenta line across a coastal windmill zone, with no warning whatever. I’m sure that with lots more knowledge (some of which I know have), I could have teched all that avionics to do exactly as I needed. But, then and there, as things were getting less good more fast, I gave up on all the tech, and went back to what I knew. Comm 2 is still a KX155, and it has a VOR/ILS. So Jeppeson paper out, look up Oulu, stay over the water until I intercept the localizer, and follow it to the glideslope. ’Worked fine.
That $100K of avionics was leading me to mutual destruction. ‘Turns out (after more reading of the manual that evening) that when the map scale (that situational awareness distraction) is set to more than 25 miles, all the obstacles are removed for declutter – and there is no warning flag! It’ll warn you if you disable terrain, but it’ll disable obstacles, and not even tell you!
My Spidy senses told me to not just follow the magenta, and that day it saved our lives. Tech is great – if you know how to use it, and it’s limitations. Both of my planes are steam gauge, with a handheld GPS, and the occasional use of maps on the Ipad, and that serves my just fine….
@Bobo I do agree, this is probably in excess of the value of the average IFR airframe. I can see the logic for an integrated ATPL/MPL school where some airlines stipulate
that the IFR phases be conducted in a glass cockpit. Although most of these would be buying new G1000 Archers/DA40/DA42s on bulk orders.
On used airframes (and the GA fleet is pushing 50 years old on average!), you may get more utility and value spending money on the airframe and powerplant. The beauty of part.nco is that a box like the GNX375 seems to future proof these airframes, and a G5 or Aspen plus the original T/C may allow stripping out some weight in the form of gyros and vacuum system.
While a GFC700 is an excellent autopilot, a simple S-TEC20 does a great job in reducing workload.
I knew someone who had a nice and rare Commander 115 which had been owned by a 747 Captain – it had four attitude indicators in various guises, as the previous owner kept upgrading the panel.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
My Spidy senses told me to not just follow the magenta, and that day it saved our lives.
When VFR this is not spicy senses but common sense. Magenta lines and VFR should not mix.
When flying single hand IFR in serious weather, however, these tools are just great (at the price that you need to invest significant time to be proficient in using them). Having an overlay of the approach chart in on the navigator is of great help – not only but also because it’s easy to check if the missed approach in the flight plan is the same as on the plate. Having an autopilot capable of flying that hold by itself (w/o need to think about the entry procedure) can be a great relief. But even simple things like having a wind indicator (and therefore no need to calculate if the crosswind-component on the ILS will be higher than the AP will be able to handle) are a great help if you are alone in IMC.
Non of this is really essential but in total it makes life much more simple, relaxed and safe. And yes, the fascination tosco mentioned is of course also part of it…
I’m having a modest avionics upgrade as we speak. GPSS steering, clear communications and satellite wx is what I really wanted. I have no affinity with synthetic vision, especially not when overlayed on my AI.
airways wrote:
I have no affinity with synthetic vision, especially not when overlayed on my AI.
I always thought that synthetic vision is largely useless (because either you fly VFR and then you have the real thing and don’t need synthetic or you fly IFR then you don’t need that vision thing).
After having it for a while (really doesn’t make a difference to tick that box as well when your do a 100k+ upgrade…) I actually found 2 use cases I like:
The smaller one is that it’s just reassuring when approaching minima in IMC that you see that runway in synth vision before you fall out of the soup. Doesn’t change the way of flying but adds another small piece of confidence.
The real deal is having synthetic vision together with traffic: It is much easier to visually identify other planes after you have seen their exact position from the TAS in the synthetic vision display exactly where they should be in the “natural vision”.
