If you expect to only make ILS or VOR approaches, then of course the database doesn’t matter.
As long as headings are unchanged and approaches reference to same runway as stored in database.
As discussed earlier the aim here is not to plan to fly in IMC, but to have the equipment deal with it safety and make an approach, probably as a diversion when the destination turns out not to be VMC.
IMO it doesn’t work like that. Approaches have to be practiced in order to actually fly them when needed. Everything else is fooling yourself “the aircraft is equipped, I’ll be able to get out of the problem when it happens”.
This is great – just what I hoped for when I posted the thread; thank you. My todo list is currently looking like:
@Ibra I’m well aware of just how hard this is going to be. Personally I find airspace the hardest, and actually the most worrysome. As soon as the PPL was passed my iPad moved from the back seat onto the yoke, and I’ve just got a SkyEcho for a bit of traffic awareness.
I do like a challenge (sometimes, frankly, for the sake of it), but I don’t want to rush anything.
I think what @arj1 describes about getting out and across the channel would be the limit of our ambitions in the next 2-5 years. Anything beyond that I think may justify a new aircraft. It’s taken me 20 years of adulthood to get to the 172; I’ll be happy it if takes another 20 years to get the capable-long-range IFR tourer. It’ll take me that amount of time to have enough of a pension to enjoy it anyway!
that is true, but just to set some context, this is all ahead and I’ve only got as far as letting an instructor know I’m in his queue for the IR(R) rating this coming winter.
I’m a fresh PPL at 60 hours. I’ve shot exactly one ILS approach in my life, and done the grand total of two hours IMC en-route.
There’s a bunch of stuff to come. I actually like flying with an instructor and always try to have some learning objective for each flight; I expect once I have an IR(R) then making sure I keep current on approaches will be on that list.
Emir wrote:
As long as headings are unchanged and approaches reference to same runway as stored in database.
You don’t need the database at all. You dial the ILS or VOR frequency and fly the tracks shown on the approach plate.
Winston wrote:
Get someone to take a look at the DME. @arj1 if you know someone at Elstree or nearby that you trust, please let me know, privately if you prefer
No, sorry! I’m usually renting there, but at the moment in process of renewing my SEP – expired due to COVID. You could try those guys that usually do the a/c maintenance for everyone around?
Winston wrote:
Get an estimate for fitting a “proper ADI”, GI275 or similar. I don’t know how messy it is behind the panel but I guess the installation cost would be several aviation units on top of the instrument cost?
According to this, £2100+installation. Could be very expensive! I’d suggest getting an IR(R) first and then deciding…
https://www.gps.co.uk/product/garmin-gi-275-electronic-flight-instrument-gi275/
Winston wrote:
I’m in his queue for the IR(R) rating this coming winter.
Have fun!
You don’t need the database at all. You dial the ILS or VOR frequency and fly the tracks shown on the approach plate.
Technically you don’t need but if you have GNS you’ll probably load approach. Then you’ll be potentially confused with different references and headings. Add lack of experience and you have recipe for disaster. I simply wouldn’t want to come in such situation.
The few ILS I looked at going UK/France flying DO need GPS, up to date database but I understand no RAIM checks or RNP monitoring final VLOC track…
Toussus is mini-STAR RNP initial approach, Radar vectors, ILS final approach as no one flies procedural with machine gun RT 
LeTouquet is RNP IAF then ILS final track as they have removed NDB/DME !
I expect one will need Radar+ILS or GPS+ILS while pure conventional procedural ILS to disappear with NDB & DME getting removed?
Emir wrote:
You don’t need the database at all. You dial the ILS or VOR frequency and fly the tracks shown on the approach plate.Technically you don’t need but if you have GNS you’ll probably load approach. Then you’ll be potentially confused with different references and headings. Add lack of experience and you have recipe for disaster. I simply wouldn’t want to come in such situation.
When you are flying rentals you tend to just fly raw approach, not loading it in the GNSS…
Emir wrote:
Then you’ll be potentially confused with different references and headings.
@Emir the RNP logic counts distance down to the IF FAF and MaPt sequentially, while a DME shows the DME distance to the threshold on an ILS. The final track should be identical, and the distances. The reason for loading an overlay approach is for situational awareness, and to provide correct RNP distances to the approach fixes.
Most SOPs will load the GNSS overlay, while most ATOs do not.
If Part.NCO and CAT require two means of navigation, perhaps the logic applies to loading the GNSS approach while flying a terrestrial navigation approach?
Definitely keep the vacuum system – see e.g. this.
The DME is very useful; you can fix it by buying a replacement on US Ebay or one of the avionics selling sites out there, probably for $1000 or so. Under this concession (which most UK shops don’t like due to its revenue reducing effect) you don’t need a Form 1 anymore.
I would buy the database sub for the 430W. If you want to fly IFR at all, you should have that, to get current waypoints. Also how long does a 430W display approaches for after database expires? Came up here.
