Why do we do Avionics updates?

Why do we buy airplanes at all? Please don’t say it is for the utility value

When I purchased my plane, it had one vacuum driven artificial horizon and one vacuum driven directional gyro, both original 1979. The DG veered off considerably and required constant readjustment using the compass. After flying for a bit in IMC, I realized that I do not want to fly in an aircraft with a single AI and a well working DG is a hard requirement. The DG was beyond repair. Combining all these requirements, it turned out that the Aspen was the most cost effective way to address it and I would get a load of features on top.

I do have a Garmin GNS430W and have no reason to change it because all it does is command the autopilot. For situational awareness etc., tablets and phones are far superior. This is also why I don’t need a 2nd certified GPS. I would buy something else if I only had a 430 without LPV/advisory glideslope but that is about the only major improvement that became available in the last 10 years.

So it’s not just about getting the latest gadget, sometimes it’s the cheapest way. There is also safety and capability that you gain from upgrades.

When i still flew VFR only I updated the GNS430 database ONCE a year, cost was around € 100. I never had a problem with that.

I often wonder this. Especially as I logged about 25 hours on instruments last year all OCAS or in Class D. All hand flown. I shot something like 50 NDB/DME approaches in the last year as well. Which is handy as thats all the aircraft is kitted out with (plus a tablet running easyVFR basic)

And every airport I ever vist has an NDB or NDB/DME approach. Yet only one has a GPS approach of any flavour.

The only avionics expenditure so far is a 8.33 trig com unit.

I wouldn’t mind getting the Garmin 155 fixed at some point as back up.

Bathman wrote:

And every airport I ever vist has an NDB or NDB/DME approach.

This is from a 1960s book on flying in the Soviet Union I presume?

Not at all there are very few airfields in the UK that have instrument approaches where the NDB or NDB approach isn’t one of them.

Carlise only has an NDB approach

achimha wrote:

This is from a 1960s book on flying in the Soviet Union I presume?

No, they didn’t have DME in the USSR On a marginally more serious note, the vast majority of Soviet airports had twin NDBs (collocated with the outer and middle marker respectively), and 2NDB approach is a total no-brainer. There was a ubiquitous joke about the approach checklist: “NDB relative bearing: ZERO, brains: OFF”.

Just to add some facts to the Russian very precise ADF and NDB systems – a very complicate and sophisticated set in an aircraft : Any VORs in that huge country would have been practically useless because of the limited range of VHF transmission. So I believe they will still use NDB nav today combined with GPS or Glonass of course. Vic

Re the original Q:

• mandatory stuff e.g. 8.33
• stuff which is de facto necessary for going anywhere e.g. Mode S
• stuff which is relatively cost effective to replace ageing and unreliable avionics
• stuff which improves safety on a particular mission profile e.g. LPV
• you have 30k burning a hole in your pocket

All of the above is debatable, including point 1 given that certain countries are now not implementing 8.33 for low level flying.

Actually a lot fewer people than appears are spending the big numbers. Forum posts are deceptive. Avionics shops have to make a living from scraps like transponder installs, which is the main reason why most of them are rather disorganised.

Re NDB approaches, they are found a lot in the UK, in many parts of southern Europe, etc, and they are usually flown with a GPS, while carrying the required equipment (ADF) for legality. Also a lot of commercially used aircraft can’t fly GPS approaches.