I took the advice of Richard & others and put the 300XL up for sale.
I'll keep my 295 instead - and by the way I have never had the slightest
problem with reception with the standard antenna with the unit
yoke-mounted.

So, all I'll have is the KX-155 with GS receiver tied to a 209 indicator
and a Garmin 340 audio panel with marker beacons, which I also picked up
used. Quoted intall price for this equipment is under $2K. As for
the audio panel, my plane doesn't even have an intercom yet (I'm using a
portable), so this should be well worth the money.

I couldn't get an appt at the avionics shop until May 10th! Argh.

If anybody thinks it's really silly for me to do IFR training with only
1 comm and 1 nav I'd guess I'd like to hear that.

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...

> If anybody thinks it's really silly for me to do IFR training with only
> 1 comm and 1 nav I'd guess I'd like to hear that.

No doubt it will increase your workload when you fly approaches, but it will
be worth it.... sort of like the IFR equivalent of getting your private
certificate in a tailwheel airplane.

If you can handle the workload of single-pilot IFR with only 1 com and 1 nav
then that will serve you very well when you move onto other avionics and
other airplanes in the future.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

I'm not really sure I like the sound of that. :-)

Maybe I should just leave the 385 in there too. Heck, it's in there and
it works.

> If you can handle the workload of single-pilot IFR with only 1 com and 1 nav
> then that will serve you very well when you move onto other avionics and
> other airplanes in the future.
>
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

That just means I need to pay for the installation of 2 more antennas, I
guess.

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> I'm not really sure I like the sound of that. :-)
>
> Maybe I should just leave the 385 in there too. Heck, it's in there and
> it works.

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...

> I'm not really sure I like the sound of that. :-)

The first time you are solo in IMC you will be REALLY glad you trained this
way. You will have confidence that you can handle any situation. When you
later move up to a more complex panel, the extra equipment will be a bonus
to help you out, not a crutch upon which you rely. Someday when you have an
electrical problem and have to reduce yourself to a minimal panel, you will
think back and say to yourself "this is no big deal - it's like like when I
got my IFR training."

The most capable instrument pilots I see are those who fly with workable but
minimal panels.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Don't sweat getting your ticket with a 1/1 setup. It's more work, but USAF
pilots do it in airplanes traveling, at their slowest approach speeds,
faster than your fastest cruise speed. They do it all the time so my point
is you can do it too. Takes diligence, but very doable. Good Luck!

JB


"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> I took the advice of Richard & others and put the 300XL up for sale.
> I'll keep my 295 instead - and by the way I have never had the slightest
> problem with reception with the standard antenna with the unit
> yoke-mounted.
>
> So, all I'll have is the KX-155 with GS receiver tied to a 209 indicator
> and a Garmin 340 audio panel with marker beacons, which I also picked up
> used. Quoted intall price for this equipment is under $2K. As for
> the audio panel, my plane doesn't even have an intercom yet (I'm using a
> portable), so this should be well worth the money.
>
> I couldn't get an appt at the avionics shop until May 10th! Argh.
>
> If anybody thinks it's really silly for me to do IFR training with only
> 1 comm and 1 nav I'd guess I'd like to hear that.

In article >,
Richard Kaplan > wrote:
>The first time you are solo in IMC you will be REALLY glad you trained this
>way. You will have confidence that you can handle any situation. When you
>later move up to a more complex panel, the extra equipment will be a bonus
>to help you out, not a crutch upon which you rely.

I thought an HSI would make my IFR training too easy, but in fact it
means that all the time you're partial panel you're down to one NAV.
It was a big confidence builder to shoot an approach near the end of
my training where my CFII sneakily retuned my DME, and when I cought
that took away the gyro instruments, and I was able to transition to
flipflopping to get cross radials while flying the LOC and realize I
had higher minimums without DME all while flying the airplane.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

Paul Folbrecht > wrote
> If anybody thinks it's really silly for me to do IFR training with only
> 1 comm and 1 nav I'd guess I'd like to hear that.

It's not silly at all. I think you made the right decision. It's how
I trained, and it's how I'm training a student now. Start by reading
everything Richard Kaplan has said on the subject - it's 100% dead on.
Then consider this:

The most important skill in flying single pilot IFR is maintaining
situational awareness. There are lots of gadgets (your 295 is one of
them) that can help, but true situational awareness is in your head.
Having to fly with a single VOR head will develop that situational
awareness - you will learn to use time and heading to estimate your
position, and use the VOR as a crosscheck because it will not be
possible to constantly crosscheck with only a single VOR.

Even a partial panel intersection hold or VOR/LOC approach where the
FAF is defined by a cross-radial will become no big deal once you have
developed the necessary skills. All else being equal, I suppose it
might add a few hours to your training. Consider it an investment in
your future as an instrument pilot, and insurance against the day
things go really, really wrong.

Michael

I did decide to keep the Cessna 385 so actually I will have a 2nd
nav/com (localizer only, of course). This is going to cost me an
additional $700 only, including the 2nd comm antenna I need. I think
that's a pretty decent tradeoff for a 2nd nav/com.

That's all the money I'm sticking into this aircraft avionics-wise,
anyway. I'm done.

Still wish I didn't have to wait 5 weeks to get everything installed.
Oh well.

~Paul

Michael wrote:

> Paul Folbrecht > wrote
>
>>If anybody thinks it's really silly for me to do IFR training with only
>>1 comm and 1 nav I'd guess I'd like to hear that.
>
>
> It's not silly at all. I think you made the right decision. It's how
> I trained, and it's how I'm training a student now. Start by reading
> everything Richard Kaplan has said on the subject - it's 100% dead on.
> Then consider this:
>
> The most important skill in flying single pilot IFR is maintaining
> situational awareness. There are lots of gadgets (your 295 is one of
> them) that can help, but true situational awareness is in your head.
> Having to fly with a single VOR head will develop that situational
> awareness - you will learn to use time and heading to estimate your
> position, and use the VOR as a crosscheck because it will not be
> possible to constantly crosscheck with only a single VOR.
>
> Even a partial panel intersection hold or VOR/LOC approach where the
> FAF is defined by a cross-radial will become no big deal once you have
> developed the necessary skills. All else being equal, I suppose it
> might add a few hours to your training. Consider it an investment in
> your future as an instrument pilot, and insurance against the day
> things go really, really wrong.
>
> Michael

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote:
> If anybody thinks it's really silly for me to do IFR training with
> only 1 comm and 1 nav I'd guess I'd like to hear that.

If economics forced that decision, then no, I don't think it's silly.
However, training for the rating without including GPS in the syllabus
*is* silly if you had a viable way to include it.

The arguments we're still seeing pooh-poohing GPS as a vital part of
instrument training are absurd, IMO. GPS is here; it's real; it's
practical; in many cases it's far superior to the older electronic means
of navigation. But it also has its own peculiar complexities and
pitfalls: CFIIs who ignore GPS do a disservice to their students who
will be flying in the modern world. I do not say that VOR and NDB
should be discarded - yet, but implying that GPS is a NAV system for
wimps, or that an approach GPS is not useful in real-world IFR flying is
ridiculous.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...>

> should be discarded - yet, but implying that GPS is a NAV system for
> wimps, or that an approach GPS is not useful in real-world IFR flying is
> ridiculous.

I don't think anyone said that. As for me, I teach in a full-motion flight
simulator with not one but three IFR GPS units -- no question I see the
value of GPS.

That said, an IFR approach GPS is simply economically impractical for a
Cessna 152. There also is absolutely no reason why one cannot get an IFR
rating in an airplane with conventional navigational equipment and learn to
use an IFR GPS for approaches at anothe time.

Thanks.

> If anybody thinks it's really silly for me to do IFR training with only
> 1 comm and 1 nav I'd guess I'd like to hear that.

To borrow an old analogy,,,, you can do it, but you'll be busier than "a
one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest",,,, especially when you have to
identify a VOR intersection (that is one that is defined by intersecting
radials of two VORs).

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL
Student-IASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> I took the advice of Richard & others and put the 300XL up for sale.
> I'll keep my 295 instead - and by the way I have never had the slightest
> problem with reception with the standard antenna with the unit
> yoke-mounted.
>
> So, all I'll have is the KX-155 with GS receiver tied to a 209 indicator
> and a Garmin 340 audio panel with marker beacons, which I also picked up
> used. Quoted intall price for this equipment is under $2K. As for
> the audio panel, my plane doesn't even have an intercom yet (I'm using a
> portable), so this should be well worth the money.
>
> I couldn't get an appt at the avionics shop until May 10th! Argh.
>

>

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote
> > If anybody thinks it's really silly for me to do IFR training with only
> > 1 comm and 1 nav I'd guess I'd like to hear that.
>
> To borrow an old analogy,,,, you can do it, but you'll be busier than "a
> one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest",,,, especially when you have to
> identify a VOR intersection (that is one that is defined by intersecting
> radials of two VORs).

You know, people told me the same thing. These were people who HAD
done it, but only as a special training exercise designed to increase
workload. When I started my instrument training, it was diffcult at
first - and then it wasn't.

Being limited to a single VOR made me realize that I couldn't
cross-check ALL the time - so I didn't. Instead, I started to
cross-check when I needed it - and I discovered that I really didn't
need to do it all that often. Why not? Well, my situational
awareness improved. I began to think in terms of what the crosscheck
was telling me - and it told me a lot more than "You're not there
yet." If the needle is four dots out on a VOR that's 20 nm away,
there's no point crosschecking 30 seconds from now. Why not? Well,
at 20 nm every degree is 1/3 nm. Four dots is 8 degrees, or 8/3 nm.
That's almost 3 nm. At 90 kts, it will be 90 seconds before it
centers. Checking sooner than a minute from now is a waste.
Realistically, once you develop situational awareness, 3-4 crosschecks
will be plenty - and that's not too hard, especially if you have a
flip-flop.

Dead reckoning is the basis of all navigation - everything else is
just a crosscheck. The more limited your ability to cross-check is,
the better your dead reckoning skills will become.

Training with minimum equipment makes for maximum skill - a skill
level you never achieve if you don't train that way. Does it take a
little longer? Sure, but you're flying your own airplane so the
marginal costs are minimal. And it makes sense to train to that
standard - that way, when you do it for real and have the GPS going,
it's a lot easier in real life. What's more, you're not lost when the
GPS goes TU.

Michael