The flying club that I am in just purchased a second 172, a really nice
plane, new interior and paint and a nearly new STCd 180hp engine.
Anyway, it has a IImorrow (or Apollo?) 2001 NMS GPS installed. It is
not IFR certified, but pages I've found about it online seem to indicate
that it can be. Does anyone know what exactly is the difference between
a certified and non certified install (other than $$$)? What would be
necessary to make it certified for IFR operations?

To get a quick idea of the potential cost go out to an open part of the
airport away from buildings and get the plane set up just like you would
be flying it, everything turned on, all the avionics on, GPS on and
booted up, etc. Tune up 121.5 on your comm and hold down the PTT for 20
seconds, no need to say anything. If at any time your GPS flags then
you're in for some expense. There are about 10-12 freqs that your
avionics guy will have to do this test on, 121.5 is one of them. A GPS
flag is not allowed on any of them, if it does then things will have to
be rearranged until it doesn't flag. Might be as simple as a filter on
the GPS coax. Might be as expensive as new comm antennas, moving
antennas, etc. Guy on the field here spent over $3K just to pass this
one test.




Matt Young wrote:
> The flying club that I am in just purchased a second 172, a really nice
> plane, new interior and paint and a nearly new STCd 180hp engine.
> Anyway, it has a IImorrow (or Apollo?) 2001 NMS GPS installed. It is
> not IFR certified, but pages I've found about it online seem to indicate
> that it can be. Does anyone know what exactly is the difference between
> a certified and non certified install (other than $$$)? What would be
> necessary to make it certified for IFR operations?

> GPS on and booted up, etc. Tune up 121.5 on your comm and hold down the PTT for 20 seconds, no need to say anything.

Don't forget to make appropriate arrangements and do this in an
appropriate time frame. I think it's five minutes before the hour for
testing, but I'm not sure. Look it up before you actually do it.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Matt Young wrote:

> The flying club that I am in just purchased a second 172, a really nice
> plane, new interior and paint and a nearly new STCd 180hp engine.
> Anyway, it has a IImorrow (or Apollo?) 2001 NMS GPS installed. It is
> not IFR certified, but pages I've found about it online seem to indicate
> that it can be. Does anyone know what exactly is the difference between
> a certified and non certified install (other than $$$)? What would be
> necessary to make it certified for IFR operations?

In addition to the frequency tests mention, the GPS has to display on an
external CDI, there has to be a switch and annunicator to change that
external CDI from VOR/LOC to GPS, and some installations require an external
annunicator for Approach Mode.

> wrote in message ...
> In addition to the frequency tests mention, the GPS has to display on an
> external CDI, there has to be a switch and annunicator to change that
> external CDI from VOR/LOC to GPS, and some installations require an
external
> annunicator for Approach Mode.
>
>

I apologize if this changes the subject a little, but I'm wondering
about something related to your comment.
I'm planning a panel for my Experimental (RV7), and it will have the
Grand Rapids EFIS/AHRS display. For radios, there will be both the GNS-430
GPS and the SL-30 Nav/Com.
The interesting part about the setup is that both radios can be switched
to display and drive the HITS on the EFIS (if I understand the specs
correctly).
So, the question is: Is a HITS display driven by either a certified GPS
or a certified NAV signal a "legal" equivilant for a separate CDI
instrument?

MJC

121.5 is not one of the frequencies called out in advisory circular
AC20-138A. If any frequency interferes then there is a problem, but the AC
and the install docs call out the other frequencies to test on.

As someone else said, it requires a CDI and annunciation. A CDI may be
available with the annunciation internal to it and if that is only connected
to the GPS would need no switching to be shared with VOR/LOC/GS. I think it
may also require a serial input for altitude coding, rather than simply the
gray code out of the average altitude digitizer. Plus jumping through the
FSDO hoops to get a flight manual supplement approved.


"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> To get a quick idea of the potential cost go out to an open part of the
> airport away from buildings and get the plane set up just like you would
> be flying it, everything turned on, all the avionics on, GPS on and
> booted up, etc. Tune up 121.5 on your comm and hold down the PTT for 20
> seconds, no need to say anything. If at any time your GPS flags then
> you're in for some expense. There are about 10-12 freqs that your
> avionics guy will have to do this test on, 121.5 is one of them. A GPS
> flag is not allowed on any of them, if it does then things will have to
> be rearranged until it doesn't flag. Might be as simple as a filter on
> the GPS coax. Might be as expensive as new comm antennas, moving
> antennas, etc. Guy on the field here spent over $3K just to pass this
> one test.
>
>
>
>
> Matt Young wrote:
> > The flying club that I am in just purchased a second 172, a really nice
> > plane, new interior and paint and a nearly new STCd 180hp engine.
> > Anyway, it has a IImorrow (or Apollo?) 2001 NMS GPS installed. It is
> > not IFR certified, but pages I've found about it online seem to indicate
> > that it can be. Does anyone know what exactly is the difference between
> > a certified and non certified install (other than $$$)? What would be
> > necessary to make it certified for IFR operations?

Jose wrote:
>> GPS on and booted up, etc. Tune up 121.5 on your comm and hold down
>> the PTT for 20 seconds, no need to say anything.
>
>
> Don't forget to make appropriate arrangements and do this in an
> appropriate time frame. I think it's five minutes before the hour for
> testing, but I'm not sure. Look it up before you actually do it.



You're thinking of ELT tests. There is no defined test period for this.

MJC wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> > In addition to the frequency tests mention, the GPS has to display on an
> > external CDI, there has to be a switch and annunicator to change that
> > external CDI from VOR/LOC to GPS, and some installations require an
> external
> > annunicator for Approach Mode.
> >
> >
>
> I apologize if this changes the subject a little, but I'm wondering
> about something related to your comment.
> I'm planning a panel for my Experimental (RV7), and it will have the
> Grand Rapids EFIS/AHRS display. For radios, there will be both the GNS-430
> GPS and the SL-30 Nav/Com.
> The interesting part about the setup is that both radios can be switched
> to display and drive the HITS on the EFIS (if I understand the specs
> correctly).
> So, the question is: Is a HITS display driven by either a certified GPS
> or a certified NAV signal a "legal" equivilant for a separate CDI
> instrument?
>
> MJC

You would have to ask an avionics guru that onel

"MJC" > wrote in :

> > wrote in message
> ...
>> In addition to the frequency tests mention, the GPS has to display on
>> an external CDI, there has to be a switch and annunicator to change
>> that external CDI from VOR/LOC to GPS, and some installations require
>> an
> external
>> annunicator for Approach Mode.
>>
>>
>
> I apologize if this changes the subject a little, but I'm
> wondering
> about something related to your comment.
> I'm planning a panel for my Experimental (RV7), and it will have
> the
> Grand Rapids EFIS/AHRS display. For radios, there will be both the
> GNS-430 GPS and the SL-30 Nav/Com.
> The interesting part about the setup is that both radios can be
> switched
> to display and drive the HITS on the EFIS (if I understand the specs
> correctly).
> So, the question is: Is a HITS display driven by either a
> certified GPS
> or a certified NAV signal a "legal" equivilant for a separate CDI
> instrument?
>
> MJC
>
>

The CDI needs to be seperate from the display on the GPS box. It can be
switched between GPS and VOR/ILS. Every IFR GPS installation that I have
ever seen in an airplane with an HSI switches the HSI between the GPS and
the VOR/ILS. Note: a while ago (I can't define "a while") there was a
requirement that if the HSI (or CDI) was displaying the GPS info, it
would automatically be switched to the NAV radio when the NAV was tuned
to a localizer frequency. This is no longer a requirement. My
installation is not set up that way.

Thanks for clarifying that, L.R.
I guess that means I need to add a 106A that will work with both my
300XL GPS and the SL 30, but my budget for the panel is already broke anyway
so that shouldn't be a major problem.

MJC

"L. R. Diu Broff" > wrote in message
...
> "MJC" > wrote in :
>
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In addition to the frequency tests mention, the GPS has to display on
> >> an external CDI, there has to be a switch and annunicator to change
> >> that external CDI from VOR/LOC to GPS, and some installations require
> >> an
> > external
> >> annunicator for Approach Mode.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I apologize if this changes the subject a little, but I'm
> > wondering
> > about something related to your comment.
> > I'm planning a panel for my Experimental (RV7), and it will have
> > the
> > Grand Rapids EFIS/AHRS display. For radios, there will be both the
> > GNS-430 GPS and the SL-30 Nav/Com.
> > The interesting part about the setup is that both radios can be
> > switched
> > to display and drive the HITS on the EFIS (if I understand the specs
> > correctly).
> > So, the question is: Is a HITS display driven by either a
> > certified GPS
> > or a certified NAV signal a "legal" equivilant for a separate CDI
> > instrument?
> >
> > MJC
> >
> >
>
> The CDI needs to be seperate from the display on the GPS box. It can be
> switched between GPS and VOR/ILS. Every IFR GPS installation that I have
> ever seen in an airplane with an HSI switches the HSI between the GPS and
> the VOR/ILS. Note: a while ago (I can't define "a while") there was a
> requirement that if the HSI (or CDI) was displaying the GPS info, it
> would automatically be switched to the NAV radio when the NAV was tuned
> to a localizer frequency. This is no longer a requirement. My
> installation is not set up that way.

As I understand it, the following are required to certify
the Apollo 2001 for APPROACH.
1. The IFR version of the 2001. This has a different
set of circuit boards from the VFR version.
2. A CDI that is in the pilot's view. Only some VOR
CDIs can take an external DC input, so you may need a new CDI.
You might be able to get away with a CDI meter movement from
an old Omnigator if you can find a suitable spot for it.
3. An annunciator panel with a few switches and lights
4. Serialized barometric input. Most installed encoders
and transponders use parallel.

BTW I've been told that the 480 with WAAS does not require the
baro input.

Start saving your dimes for a 480.

--
Chuck Forsberg www.omen.com 503-614-0430
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 FAX 629-0665

this guy is a net troll, he's using at least (6) other usernames,
killfile him ASAP, below is his posting history

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?enc_author=aLo_UhMAAACqeZKH24Ly4UNtt449SfjF WMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww


see the link above, he is using
at least (10) other usernames on Usenet, they include


MARCO R
ROBERT J. KOLKER
ROBERT MORIEN
NEWPS
ASK A DIFFERENT
ROBERT KOLKER
EARL KIOSTERUD
therefore, he has no credibility- merely another net troll

Really? He's impersonating me? Cool.



wrote:
> this guy is a net troll, he's using at least (6) other usernames,
> killfile him ASAP, below is his posting history
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?enc_author=aLo_UhMAAACqeZKH24Ly4UNtt449SfjF WMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww
>
>
> see the link above, he is using
> at least (10) other usernames on Usenet, they include
>
>
> MARCO R
> ROBERT J. KOLKER
> ROBERT MORIEN
> NEWPS
> ASK A DIFFERENT
> ROBERT KOLKER
> EARL KIOSTERUD
> therefore, he has no credibility- merely another net troll
>