I'm going to add either the GNS 430W or GNS 480 to a Beach Bonanza and am
wondering if any of you who fly with these GPS units have a recommendation?
I'd like a very capable IFR GPS with integrated NAV/COM abilities, which
I'll couple to my S-TEC 50 Autopilot with GPSS. Both the 430W and 480 are
WAAS capable. Either will fit into my panel. (I consider the 530 out of my
price range and I'm not going to tie WX or Traffic into the GNS.)

Do you have any recommendations? Which unit is the most capable? Whichever I
get, I'm going to work diligently to learn, including any quirks.

Thanks in advance for your comments!
-Ron Gordon

Ron Gordon wrote:
> I'm going to add either the GNS 430W or GNS 480 to a Beach Bonanza and am
> wondering if any of you who fly with these GPS units have a recommendation?
> I'd like a very capable IFR GPS with integrated NAV/COM abilities, which
> I'll couple to my S-TEC 50 Autopilot with GPSS. Both the 430W and 480 are
> WAAS capable. Either will fit into my panel. (I consider the 530 out of my
> price range and I'm not going to tie WX or Traffic into the GNS.)
>
> Do you have any recommendations? Which unit is the most capable? Whichever I
> get, I'm going to work diligently to learn, including any quirks.
>
> Thanks in advance for your comments!
> -Ron Gordon
>
>
Go with the 430W.

The 400/500 series is where Garmin is doing all their work.

The 400 series are the nav/com engines for the G-1000.

Sam Spade > wrote:
> Go with the 430W.

Well, this deserves a counterpoint: Go with the 480!

Actually, if I was not familiar with either one, I would carefully evaluate both of the units using their
downloadable simulations. The big difference in my mind between them is the user interface. I find the
480 to be much more logical and intuitive, however others have said they think it's too rigid and "FMS-
like". The other big difference is that the 480 has airways. If you get a lot of airway clearances, they are
MUCH easier with the 480. This was not added to the 430 as part of the WAAS upgrade.

Mike

I found several reasons to prefer the GNS 480 over the GNS 430W. I was
hoping to get some specific feedback from the group about the two units,
rather than just personal preference or anectodal comments. I've worked with
the software simulators for both and have studied the downloadable PDF
manuals and literature. I have prepared my own list of factual differences
between the two units and my comparison leads me to favor the GNS 480.
Here's my current comparison list below. Perhaps those of you who have a
chance to fly with both can provdie additional points of comparision between
the two (GNS 430W and GNS 480) and double-check my work. Since the software
and feature set of the GNS 430 was changed in going to the GNS 430W, a
comparison of the GNS 480 with the GNS 430W may be difficult, because few
have had a chance to really explore the GNS 430W new features.

Here are my specific comparison points:

1. Using the software simulators for both units, I felt that the GNS 480
user interface was easier to use and easier to update when a change to the
planned flight plan was required. See also the review article
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/garmin-gps. In my simulator experience, I
prefer the "soft keys" of the GNS 480 rather than the pop-up menu selections
of the GNS 430W. The soft keys make many procedures easier to accomplish in
the GNS 480, and fewer button clicks are needed. I don't mind the FMS-like
structure of the GNS 480 user interface and feel that it will be easier to
master and use in a single-pilot IFR environment. (My unit is going into a
Beach Bonanza with S-TEC 50 and GPSS.)

2. The GNS 480 can provide full guidance through a hold, and can easily
accept ad-hoc holds. See the following article for information on how this
is done using the unit. When coupled to your autopilot with GPSS, the plane
is automatically flow through the entire hold.
http://freightdogtales.blogspot.com/2006/03/holding-with-gns-480.html

3. With the GNS 480 you can listen to both NAV frequencies at the same time
(Approach and ATIS, for example) or both NAV frequencies. Only one unit is
needed! That's not the case with the GNS 430W.

4. The GNS 480 includes the Victor airways. Almost every one of the IFR
clearances that I receive includes a Victor airway portion, and these have
to be manually entered, turn by turn, into the GNS 430W.

5. The GNS 480 provides audio prompting when reaching a waypoint, when the
localizer comes alive, at 500 feet above the runway, and at the missed
approach point. See http://www.garmin.com/products/gns480/voicePop.html. The
GNS 430W does not provide any audio prompting.

6. The GNS 480 can control a remote transponder. So no panel space is needed
for the transponder if you use an appropriate unit like the GTX 33.

7. With a GPSS the GNS 480 can fly the aircraft through all approach
procedures, including DME arcs, holds, procedure turns, etc.

8. The GNS 480 provides a NAV page with a full compass rose CDI depiction.

9. The GNS 480 has a physically larger screen than the GNS 430W and higher
pixel resolution. The GNS 480 screen refresh rate is much faster than the
GNS 430/530. The GNS 480 screen is nice to look at and easier on the eyes
than the GNS 430W.

10. For IFR navigation, the GNS 480 appears to provide more assistance and
more capabilities than the GNS 430W. Perhaps this is what people mean when
they say that the GNS 480 is more FMS-like than the GNS 430W.

Have I missed any features? (Note, that I am considering the GNS 480 to be a
full Gamma 3, TSO C146 certified box, because Garmin will resolve the
current SAIB issue by the time I install the unit. So we don't need to go
through that discussion as part of this message thread.)

Ron Gordon > wrote:

Ron, I have been flying a lot of IFR in a Bonanza equipped with the GNS430
and GPSS over the last two years in the very busy Northeast US airspaces
(including many flights into Boston, Teterboro, and Philadelphia) and will
be upgrading my unit to the WAAS model sometime this spring. I do not have
any experience at all with the GNS480.

The only two points I would toss in here are:

> 7. With a GPSS the GNS 480 can fly the aircraft through all approach
> procedures, including DME arcs, holds, procedure turns, etc.

After playing with the GNS430W simulator I am fairly confident that the
GNS430W coupled with GPSS will also fly published holds/procedure turns/DME
arcs, etc. However, I don't see the GPS430W doing ad-hoc holds, at least
based on my work with the sim.

> 10. For IFR navigation, the GNS 480 appears to provide more assistance and
> more capabilities than the GNS 430W. Perhaps this is what people mean when
> they say that the GNS 480 is more FMS-like than the GNS 430W.

I find the GNS430 a very capable unit for IFR flight. While the airways
feature would make life easier, the lack of this feature does not mean the
unit is any less capable than the GNS480, just a touch more tedious. Same
goes for the lack of ad-hoc holds.

Additionally, I have never experienced a GPS failure over about 600 hours
of IFR flight using the GNS430. Can't speak for the GNS480, but in over
500 hours using a Bendix/King KLN94, I experienced three different GPS
"crashes" during flight, with two occurring during approaches. (The B/K
experience thrown in here only as an example of a GPS crash.)

Ultimately I believe the issue between the two units boils down to this:
There have been many in this group who have speculated that Garmin bought
the GNS480 from UPSAT to a) capture working WAAS experience and talent and
b) corner the market of GPS WAAS. Some have concluded, therefore, that
Garmin will abandon the GNS480 unit for the GNS43x/53x line, once these
models are fully WAAS-capable, given the popularity of these models.

As a pilot who has already been burned twice by installing new avionics
that are now being left behind (a WSI weather receiver and a Mode-S
transponder for traffic), I am once bitten, twice shy when it comes to
current avionics models that may also be left behind. :)

It already seems as if you have done some excellent research. The problem
you will have is having a GNS430W pilot add his/her experience to this
thread, since the units are just starting to trickle out now. Please post
a follow-up here, as I know I would be interested in reading your
experiences in whatever you install.

--
Peter

Mike Adams wrote:

> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Go with the 430W.
>
>
I was advocating the 430W in the context of the original poster.

Actually, the 530W is a whole lot better, just like the 530/500 is a
whole lot better than the 430/400.

That is why those who have the bucks stack a 530 over a 430.

As to no airway database, I find that a minor issue in a slow light
aircraft. You don't have to build the entire airway on the fly.

I have to agree with Sam.
You really should include the 530 in your analysis to determine which unit
to install.
I understand that cost is a major factor but you might just find that the
additional features, screen size & resolution put the 530 ahead of the 430
or 480.
[The 480 has the smallest screen area of all 3 units]
I went through the same dilemma 6 months ago, the 530 came out on top for my
mission [without WAAS at that time]
I took a deep breath, called the bank and don't regret a single dollar of
the additional cost [Or the cost to now upgrade it to WAAS]
Although you are not currently interested in interfacing the purchase with
some of the other equipment available, this is also an area that should be
evaluated closely so you are aware of the limitations of all units.
I also said I was not interested in interfacing beyond roll steering, that
opinion is changing daily as I consider now what other equipment I might now
add to the panel. Never be sure that your finished !!

I am also a firm believer that Garmin will not invest further in developing
the 480 beyond its current ability.

Roy




"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Adams wrote:
>
>> Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>>Go with the 430W.
>>
> I was advocating the 430W in the context of the original poster.
>
> Actually, the 530W is a whole lot better, just like the 530/500 is a whole
> lot better than the 430/400.
>
> That is why those who have the bucks stack a 530 over a 430.
>
> As to no airway database, I find that a minor issue in a slow light
> aircraft. You don't have to build the entire airway on the fly.
>

There is a Version 3.0 of the firmware in progress for the 480, Garmin
AT is and will continue development and support for the 480.

Also,
The 430/530 ARE NOT FAA certified for PRIMARY ENROUTE navigation. The
480 is.

Go with the 480.

JD wrote:

> There is a Version 3.0 of the firmware in progress for the 480, Garmin
> AT is and will continue development and support for the 480.
>
> Also,
> The 430/530 ARE NOT FAA certified for PRIMARY ENROUTE navigation. The
> 480 is.
>
> Go with the 480.
>

That will change with an update very soon.

The 480 is a dead product.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> arcs, etc. However, I don't see the GPS430W doing ad-hoc holds, at least
> based on my work with the sim.
>

Not sure of your exact meaning of "ad-hoc" holds, unless you mean
unpublished holds. I don't see any problem with the 430 in performing holds
on any course at any fix or at present position. It won't provide any
positive course guidance except on the inbound leg at any hold, published or
unpublished.

I'm still not convinced of the value of steering around a hold given a
strong crosswind.

In article . com>,
"JD" > wrote:

> There is a Version 3.0 of the firmware in progress for the 480, Garmin
> AT is and will continue development and support for the 480.

Do you know what changes the 3.0 software will have?


> The 430/530 ARE NOT FAA certified for PRIMARY ENROUTE navigation. The
> 480 is.

Is that true even with the WAAS upgrade? I thought the thing that made the
480 primary en-route-capable was the WAAS?

JD


Why is a new version of the software is required and what changes it will
introduce ?
When did Garmin announced that they will "continue development and support
for the 480" ?
What do all the aircraft fitted with only dual 430/530's use for primary
enroute navigation under instrument rules ?

Roy

"JD" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> There is a Version 3.0 of the firmware in progress for the 480, Garmin
> AT is and will continue development and support for the 480.
>
> Also,
> The 430/530 ARE NOT FAA certified for PRIMARY ENROUTE navigation. The
> 480 is.
>
> Go with the 480.
>
>

Ron Gordon wrote:
> I'm going to add either the GNS 430W or GNS 480 to a Beach Bonanza and am
> wondering if any of you who fly with these GPS units have a recommendation?
> I'd like a very capable IFR GPS with integrated NAV/COM abilities, which
> I'll couple to my S-TEC 50 Autopilot with GPSS. Both the 430W and 480 are
> WAAS capable. Either will fit into my panel. (I consider the 530 out of my
> price range and I'm not going to tie WX or Traffic into the GNS.)
>
> Do you have any recommendations? Which unit is the most capable? Whichever I
> get, I'm going to work diligently to learn, including any quirks.

The 480 is more capable (has holds, etc), but the 430 is *MUCH* easier
to use. If you are a computer geek, go with the 480. If you want easy
of flying, go with the 430. If you think you may want to fly G1000
someday, go with the 430 because the nav side is right from a 430.

-Robert, CFII

On Jan 1, 5:10 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> JD wrote:
> > There is a Version 3.0 of the firmware in progress for the 480, Garmin
> > AT is and will continue development and support for the 480.
>
> > Also,
> > The 430/530 ARE NOT FAA certified for PRIMARY ENROUTE navigation. The
> > 480 is.
>
> > Go with the 480.That will change with an update very soon.
>
> The 480 is a dead product.

All products eventually become "dead", I'd bet that the 430 dies before
the 480. The 480 is a much newer design than the 430/530 and should
have a longer life than the older technologies.

But, only Garmin knows for sure, but they spent a lot of money to
acquire Apollo and the techonology/engineers that the 480 was built on.

It wouldn't make much buisness sense to now kill that product after the
millions(?) they spent to acquire it.

On Jan 1, 5:17 pm, "Roy N5804F" >
wrote:

> Why is a new version of the software is required and what changes it will
> introduce ?

I don't know what v3.0 firmware for the 480 will bring. The current 480
firmware is 2.1, so 3.0 should have some significate enhancements. I
just got this from the support guys when I was upgrading to 2.1

> When did Garmin announced that they will "continue development and support
> for the 480" ?
> What do all the aircraft fitted with only dual 430/530's use for primary
> enroute navigation under instrument rules ?

What ever they have been using. Could be VOR for example.

On Jan 1, 5:16 pm, Roy Smith > wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
> "JD" > wrote:
> > There is a Version 3.0 of the firmware in progress for the 480, Garmin
> > AT is and will continue development and support for the 480.Do you know what changes the 3.0 software will have?
>
> > The 430/530 ARE NOT FAA certified for PRIMARY ENROUTE navigation. The
> > 480 is.Is that true even with the WAAS upgrade? I thought the thing that made the
> 480 primary en-route-capable was the WAAS?

The 480 has always been certified for Primary Enroute Navigate, it's
the 530/430 that is not, even with the WAAS upgrades for the 530/430.
But as Sam points out, they will be with a new release of the 530/430
firmware.

> 480 is more capable (has holds, etc), but the 430 is *MUCH* easier
> to use. If you are a computer geek, go with the 480. If you want easy
> of flying, go with the 430. If you think you may want to fly G1000
> someday, go with the 430 because the nav side is right from a 430.
>
> -Robert, CFII

I tend to disagree with Robert, I think the 480 has a more intutive
user interface.

"Ad-hoc" holds: You can define a hold point at any user waypoint or
database point. Specify the leg lenght in mins or miles/Kilomiles
(grin), direction of turns, etc.. The 480/GPSS will drive the hold for
you.

On Jan 1, 5:39 pm, "JD" > wrote:
> > 480 is more capable (has holds, etc), but the 430 is *MUCH* easier
> > to use. If you are a computer geek, go with the 480. If you want easy
> > of flying, go with the 430. If you think you may want to fly G1000
> > someday, go with the 430 because the nav side is right from a 430.
>
> > -Robert, CFIII tend to disagree with Robert, I think the 480 has a more intutive
> user interface.
>
> "Ad-hoc" holds: You can define a hold point at any user waypoint or
> database point. Specify the leg lenght in mins or miles/Kilomiles
> (grin), direction of turns, etc.. The 480/GPSS will drive the hold for
> you.

And, also, it'll tell you what kind of entry to use, teardrop, direct,
etc..

"JD" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 1, 5:17 pm, "Roy N5804F" >
> wrote:
>
>> Why is a new version of the software is required and what changes it will
>> introduce ?
>
> I don't know what v3.0 firmware for the 480 will bring. The current 480
> firmware is 2.1, so 3.0 should have some significate enhancements. I
> just got this from the support guys when I was upgrading to 2.1
>
>> When did Garmin announced that they will "continue development and
>> support
>> for the 480" ?
>> What do all the aircraft fitted with only dual 430/530's use for primary
>> enroute navigation under instrument rules ?
>
> What ever they have been using. Could be VOR for example.
>
>

I do believe that the updated software for the 480 is required to cure
existing problems found with the 480 during /W certification for the
430/530 units ?

The VOR portion is an integral part of the 430/530 so I would dispute that
the 430/530's are certified for enroute in a normal certified IFR
installation.

Am I wrong again ?

Roy

> Have I missed any features? (Note, that I am considering the GNS 480 to be a
> full Gamma 3, TSO C146 certified box, because Garmin will resolve the
> current SAIB issue by the time I install the unit. So we don't need to go
> through that discussion as part of this message thread.)

I'm not sure about the 430, but the 480 has 8 serial ports. One I'm
using for the remote transponder, another I'll use with a fuel flow
computer to be installed, such as the TrueFlow 500 from Insight. All
the Fuel Flow data can be displayed through the 480. Such as Gals/hour,
fuel to next waypoint, fuel remaining at destination, etc. without
having to use up any additional panel space.

The other serial ports can be used to connect up various barametric
hardware. Can't speak to 530/430, but the 480 has a lot of room to
expand.

On Jan 1, 5:44 pm, "Roy N5804F" >
wrote:
> "JD" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 5:17 pm, "Roy N5804F" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> Why is a new version of the software is required and what changes it will
> >> introduce ?
>
> > I don't know what v3.0 firmware for the 480 will bring. The current 480
> > firmware is 2.1, so 3.0 should have some significate enhancements. I
> > just got this from the support guys when I was upgrading to 2.1
>
> >> When did Garmin announced that they will "continue development and
> >> support
> >> for the 480" ?
> >> What do all the aircraft fitted with only dual 430/530's use for primary
> >> enroute navigation under instrument rules ?
>
> > What ever they have been using. Could be VOR for example.I do believe that the updated software for the 480 is required to cure
> existing problems found with the 480 during /W certification for the
> 430/530 units ?
>
> The VOR portion is an integral part of the 430/530 so I would dispute that
> the 430/530's are certified for enroute in a normal certified IFR
> installation.
>
> Am I wrong again ?
>
Roy, could just be a time lag in reading/posting, but the 530/430s ARE
NOT currently certified for PRIMARY ENROUTE NAVIGATION, IFR or
otherwise.

"JD" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 1, 5:39 pm, "JD" > wrote:
>> > 480 is more capable (has holds, etc), but the 430 is *MUCH* easier
>> > to use. If you are a computer geek, go with the 480. If you want easy
>> > of flying, go with the 430. If you think you may want to fly G1000
>> > someday, go with the 430 because the nav side is right from a 430.
>>
>> > -Robert, CFIII tend to disagree with Robert, I think the 480 has a more
>> > intutive
>> user interface.
>>
>> "Ad-hoc" holds: You can define a hold point at any user waypoint or
>> database point. Specify the leg lenght in mins or miles/Kilomiles
>> (grin), direction of turns, etc.. The 480/GPSS will drive the hold for
>> you.
>
> And, also, it'll tell you what kind of entry to use, teardrop, direct,
> etc..
>
>
As does the 530.

I have a real problem with your statement that the 430/530 is not enroute
certified. They are all that is fitted into the bird I fly we fly IFR all
the time.

"JD" > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 5:44 pm, "Roy N5804F" >
> wrote:
>> "JD" > wrote in
>> ooglegroups.com...
>> > On Jan 1, 5:17 pm, "Roy N5804F" >
>> > wrote:
>> >> What do all the aircraft fitted with only dual 430/530's use for
>> >> primary enroute navigation under instrument rules ?
>>
>> > What ever they have been using. Could be VOR for example.I do
>> > believe that the updated software for the 480 is required to cure
>> existing problems found with the 480 during /W certification for the
>> 430/530 units ?
>>
>> The VOR portion is an integral part of the 430/530 so I would
>> dispute that the 430/530's are certified for enroute in a normal
>> certified IFR installation.
>>
>> Am I wrong again ?
>>
> Roy, could just be a time lag in reading/posting, but the 530/430s ARE
> NOT currently certified for PRIMARY ENROUTE NAVIGATION, IFR or
> otherwise.

I think Roy is correct. The 430/530 *GPS* function is not approved for primary nav, but the built-in VOR
receiver could serve as the required additional means of navigation. The issue is not the box failing, it's
the loss of RAIM integrity with the older TSO C129a GPS boxes. This limitation goes away with the
WAAS approval.

Mike

"Roy N5804F" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> The VOR portion is an integral part of the 430/530 so I would dispute
> that the 430/530's are certified for enroute in a normal certified IFR
> installation.
>
> Am I wrong again ?
>

I don't have direct personal knowledge of this, but I have read in several
places and have been told that the radios are on a separate power supply
from the GPS receiver. I don't know how the display is driven and powered,
if it is independent of the GPS portion.

On Jan 1, 6:02 pm, Mike Adams > wrote:
> "JD" > wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 5:44 pm, "Roy N5804F" >
> > wrote:
> >> "JD" > wrote in
> >> ooglegroups.com...
> >> > On Jan 1, 5:17 pm, "Roy N5804F" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> What do all the aircraft fitted with only dual 430/530's use for
> >> >> primary enroute navigation under instrument rules ?
>
> >> > What ever they have been using. Could be VOR for example.I do
> >> > believe that the updated software for the 480 is required to cure
> >> existing problems found with the 480 during /W certification for the
> >> 430/530 units ?
>
> >> The VOR portion is an integral part of the 430/530 so I would
> >> dispute that the 430/530's are certified for enroute in a normal
> >> certified IFR installation.
>
> >> Am I wrong again ?
>
> > Roy, could just be a time lag in reading/posting, but the 530/430s ARE
> > NOT currently certified for PRIMARY ENROUTE NAVIGATION, IFR or
> > otherwise.I think Roy is correct. The 430/530 *GPS* function is not approved for primary nav, but the built-in VOR
> receiver could serve as the required additional means of navigation. The issue is not the box failing, it's
> the loss of RAIM integrity with the older TSO C129a GPS boxes. This limitation goes away with the
> WAAS approval.
>
> Mike

>From Garmin's news letter:
http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/110906.html

"*Due to the TSO limitation in conjunction with the AFMS limitation,
Garmin's GNS 400/500 series navigators will not be certified as a
"primary means" of GPS navigation until after customers install a new
software version. Garmin expects to issue a Service Bulletin in the
first quarter of 2007 issuing the software. The software will be
updated via the 400/500W data loader card. This required software
update is expected to be available in the first quarter of 2007."

"JD" > wrote:

> On Jan 1, 6:02 pm, Mike Adams > wrote:
>> I think Roy is correct. The 430/530 *GPS* function is not
>> approved for primary nav, but the built-in VOR
>> receiver could serve as the required additional means of navigation.
>> The issue is not the box failing, it's the loss of RAIM integrity
>> with the older TSO C129a GPS boxes. This limitation goes away with
>> the WAAS approval.
>>
>> Mike
>
>>From Garmin's news letter:
> http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/110906.html
>
> "*Due to the TSO limitation in conjunction with the AFMS limitation,
> Garmin's GNS 400/500 series navigators will not be certified as a
> "primary means" of GPS navigation until after customers install a new
> software version. Garmin expects to issue a Service Bulletin in the
> first quarter of 2007 issuing the software. The software will be
> updated via the 400/500W data loader card. This required software
> update is expected to be available in the first quarter of 2007."
>

Yes, I think we're saying the same thing. The 430W/530W will have primary means capability with this
new software version. This is the "WAAS approval" I referred to above. I interpreted Roy's question to be
regarding the basic 530 capability prior to the /W upgrade. The TSO C129a GPS approval is just for
supplemental nav, so the internal VOR can be used as the backup.

Mike

In article om>,
"JD" > wrote:

> > 480 is more capable (has holds, etc), but the 430 is *MUCH* easier
> > to use. If you are a computer geek, go with the 480. If you want easy
> > of flying, go with the 430. If you think you may want to fly G1000
> > someday, go with the 430 because the nav side is right from a 430.
> >
> > -Robert, CFII
>
> I tend to disagree with Robert, I think the 480 has a more intutive
> user interface.
>
> "Ad-hoc" holds: You can define a hold point at any user waypoint or
> database point. Specify the leg lenght in mins or miles/Kilomiles
> (grin), direction of turns, etc.. The 480/GPSS will drive the hold for
> you.

One thing about holds on the 480 that's counter-intuitive is that the
inbound leg is always defined in terms of "course to". If ATC says
"hold south of Carmel VOR on the 180 radial", you have to enter "360" on
the hold screen. If you enter "180", you end up holding north.

Of course, one could argue that the classic phrasology for describing a VOR
hold is counter-intuitive, and the GPS does it "right". In any case, it is
different, and I've seen it be a cause of confusion when teaching people
how to use the box.

Mike,
My understanding that WAAS usage has been approved for landings, but
not for GPS navigation, seems screwy, but what's new?

On Jan 1, 6:24 pm, Mike Adams > wrote:
> "JD" > wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 6:02 pm, Mike Adams > wrote:
> >> I think Roy is correct. The 430/530 *GPS* function is not
> >> approved for primary nav, but the built-in VOR
> >> receiver could serve as the required additional means of navigation.
> >> The issue is not the box failing, it's the loss of RAIM integrity
> >> with the older TSO C129a GPS boxes. This limitation goes away with
> >> the WAAS approval.
>
> >> Mike
>
> >>From Garmin's news letter:
> >http://www.garmin.com/pressroom/aviation/110906.html
>
> > "*Due to the TSO limitation in conjunction with the AFMS limitation,
> > Garmin's GNS 400/500 series navigators will not be certified as a
> > "primary means" of GPS navigation until after customers install a new
> > software version. Garmin expects to issue a Service Bulletin in the
> > first quarter of 2007 issuing the software. The software will be
> > updated via the 400/500W data loader card. This required software
> > update is expected to be available in the first quarter of 2007."Yes, I think we're saying the same thing. The 430W/530W will have primary means capability with this
> new software version. This is the "WAAS approval" I referred to above. I interpreted Roy's question to be
> regarding the basic 530 capability prior to the /W upgrade. The TSO C129a GPS approval is just for
> supplemental nav, so the internal VOR can be used as the backup.
>
> Mike

Stan Prevost > wrote:

> Not sure of your exact meaning of "ad-hoc" holds, unless you mean
> unpublished holds.

Unpublished, on-the-fly, unscripted, given by ATC to slow traffic, etc.
Actually unpublished might not be the correct term either, since as far as
I know the GNS430W does not have en route holds (holds that are published
on en route charts) in its database.

> I don't see any problem with the 430 in performing holds
> on any course at any fix or at present position. It won't provide any
> positive course guidance except on the inbound leg at any hold, published or
> unpublished.

But once the GNS430 is upgraded to the WAAS feature-set, it appears (based
on the sim) that the unit will be able to provide positive course guidance
completely around holds that are published on terminal charts. That is
what I discovered when playing with the GNS430W sim.


--
Peter

JD > wrote:

> And, also, it'll tell you what kind of entry to use, teardrop, direct,
> etc..

The GNS430W/530W will do this for terminal chart-published holds, too.

--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:

>
> But once the GNS430 is upgraded to the WAAS feature-set, it appears (based
> on the sim) that the unit will be able to provide positive course guidance
> completely around holds that are published on terminal charts. That is
> what I discovered when playing with the GNS430W sim.
>
>

Provided you have an autopilot with roll steering.

JD wrote:

>.
>
> But, only Garmin knows for sure, but they spent a lot of money to
> acquire Apollo and the techonology/engineers that the 480 was built on.
>
> It wouldn't make much buisness sense to now kill that product after the
> millions(?) they spent to acquire it.
>
It was done to kill the competition.

JD wrote:


>>
>
> Roy, could just be a time lag in reading/posting, but the 530/430s ARE
> NOT currently certified for PRIMARY ENROUTE NAVIGATION, IFR or
> otherwise.
>

The only "otherwise" that comes to mind is VFR, and nothing, other than
my piloting skills, has to be certified for primary en route VFR nav. ;-)

Roy N5804F wrote:


>
> I have a real problem with your statement that the 430/530 is not enroute
> certified. They are all that is fitted into the bird I fly we fly IFR all
> the time.
>
>
It is so certified. This really gets complicated, because the FAA has
created a moving target with all their changes.

You can use your 530 as sole means by doing an en route RAIM prediction
for the route.

Once the 530W has the update, you can use it as sole means without
taking any action for domestic flight.

The latest version of the 530 without WAAS, is approved for sole means
for oceanic because of FDE (fault detection exclusion).

The FAA has never really taken a firm position on what is primary for en
route, because the NAS is still predicated on VOR. This is very much an
FAA problem of being a horse and buggy aviation agency. ;-)

JD wrote:
> > 480 is more capable (has holds, etc), but the 430 is *MUCH* easier
> > to use. If you are a computer geek, go with the 480. If you want easy
> > of flying, go with the 430. If you think you may want to fly G1000
> > someday, go with the 430 because the nav side is right from a 430.
> >
> > -Robert, CFII
>
> I tend to disagree with Robert, I think the 480 has a more intutive
> user interface.

As an instructor, teaching in a GPS that makes heavy use of softkeys
just makes things one level more difficult. In the 480 if you are on
the wrong page, you can't swap com1/com2. The 430 has dedicated buttons
for nav/com. Again, not bashing the 480 but its easier for me to teach
the 430 than the 480.
I've done instructing in the G1000 (430 basically) and found that the
most difficult (at least VFR) thing for pilots to learn is how to
change pages and manipulate the cursor to enter data. However, the 480
is certainly a more capable unit but more difficult in that regard.
Also, I don't think the method of having a departure page, enroute
page, and destination page for the flight plan is intuitive in the 480.
In the 430 the start is the departure and the last fix is the
destination, which seems more intuitive.

-Robert

Thanks Sam for the detailed explanation.

We have the very latest 530 without WAAS so it seems I am all set to cross
the Atlantic in the Archer.
Now when I fit the extra fuel tank and depart 300 lbs over gross weight am I
still legal to use the 530 as sole means of ocean navigation on the way home
to the England :-)

Thanks again,

Roy

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Roy N5804F wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I have a real problem with your statement that the 430/530 is not enroute
>> certified. They are all that is fitted into the bird I fly we fly IFR all
>> the time.
>>
> It is so certified. This really gets complicated, because the FAA has
> created a moving target with all their changes.
>
> You can use your 530 as sole means by doing an en route RAIM prediction
> for the route.
>
> Once the 530W has the update, you can use it as sole means without taking
> any action for domestic flight.
>
> The latest version of the 530 without WAAS, is approved for sole means for
> oceanic because of FDE (fault detection exclusion).
>
> The FAA has never really taken a firm position on what is primary for en
> route, because the NAS is still predicated on VOR. This is very much an
> FAA problem of being a horse and buggy aviation agency. ;-)
>

Roy N5804F wrote:

>
> Thanks Sam for the detailed explanation.
>
> We have the very latest 530 without WAAS so it seems I am all set to cross
> the Atlantic in the Archer.
> Now when I fit the extra fuel tank and depart 300 lbs over gross weight am I
> still legal to use the 530 as sole means of ocean navigation on the way home
> to the England :-)
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Roy

So long as your 530 has the firmware version that gives it FDE, you are
set for oceanic.

Robert M. Gary wrote:



> I've done instructing in the G1000 (430 basically) and found that the
> most difficult (at least VFR) thing for pilots to learn is how to
> change pages and manipulate the cursor to enter data. However, the 480
> is certainly a more capable unit but more difficult in that regard.
>
>I can't image a 480 being more capable than a G-1000 with WAAS.

Ron Gordon wrote:
> I'm going to add either the GNS 430W or GNS 480 to a Beach Bonanza and am
> wondering if any of you who fly with these GPS units have a recommendation?
> I'd like a very capable IFR GPS with integrated NAV/COM abilities, which
> I'll couple to my S-TEC 50 Autopilot with GPSS. Both the 430W and 480 are
> WAAS capable. Either will fit into my panel. (I consider the 530 out of my
> price range and I'm not g


The 480 is a far superior unit in many ways to the 430. It excels
at IFR work. You enter flight plans/mods to the plans as you would
expect. You enter the destination and then starting at your
source you can enter the next waypoint (as the 430 does) or you
can enter the airway at that point and then scroll through all
the waypoints on the airway to find the next point.

The NAV/COM unit is based on the SL30 and is far superior to
anything garmin has ever done.

The thing has full approach sequencing through the autopilot
which I thought Garmin would have added as part of their -W
conversion but early reports seems to say otherwise.

Sam Spade wrote:
> JD wrote:
>
>> .
>>
>> But, only Garmin knows for sure, but they spent a lot of money to
>> acquire Apollo and the techonology/engineers that the 480 was built on.
>>
>> It wouldn't make much buisness sense to now kill that product after the
>> millions(?) they spent to acquire it.
>>
> It was done to kill the competition.

Actually, I think it was to get a WAAS product two years before
the 430 was ready and to pick up all the work that UPSAT had done
with ADS-B and to pick up the SL-30/40 non-gps com units that they
didn't have an answer for.

They've already rolled forward the MX-20 into the GMX200 for those
who aren't going to replace the enitre panel for the 600/900x/1000
line.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>
> The 480 is more capable (has holds, etc), but the 430 is *MUCH* easier
> to use.

I disagree. If you are unsullied by having used the 430, it's much
easier to run the 480. The user interface is FAR superior on the
480. The only thing that the 430 has going for it is it carries
forth the legacy of the entire Garmin previous handheld/panel mount
behavior.

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Ron Gordon wrote:
>> I'm going to add either the GNS 430W or GNS 480\

Another handy feature of the 480, is that it (as
well as the MX20 and the GMX200) use insdustry
standard memory cards for the database. There's
no need to lug around nor purchase the overpriced
Skybound reader. All you need is a Windoze
recognized CF (or for the 200, SD card) reader.
The 480 comes with a $30 Sandisk USB interface
but the cards program just fine in my PCCard
CF interface I use for my digital camera as well.

Ron Gordon wrote:

> Do you have any recommendations? Which unit is the most capable? Whichever I
> get, I'm going to work diligently to learn, including any quirks.

You can take advantage of lots of user experience with the 480 by
joining the gns480-users yahoo group and paging through the message archive:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gns480-users/

Dave

Ron Natalie wrote:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> JD wrote:
>>
>>> .
>>>
>>> But, only Garmin knows for sure, but they spent a lot of money to
>>> acquire Apollo and the techonology/engineers that the 480 was built on.
>>>
>>> It wouldn't make much buisness sense to now kill that product after the
>>> millions(?) they spent to acquire it.
>>>
>> It was done to kill the competition.
>
>
> Actually, I think it was to get a WAAS product two years before
> the 430 was ready and to pick up all the work that UPSAT had done
> with ADS-B and to pick up the SL-30/40 non-gps com units that they
> didn't have an answer for.
>
> They've already rolled forward the MX-20 into the GMX200 for those
> who aren't going to replace the enitre panel for the 600/900x/1000
> line.

That too. ;-)

Sam Spade wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've done instructing in the G1000 (430 basically) and found that the
> > most difficult (at least VFR) thing for pilots to learn is how to
> > change pages and manipulate the cursor to enter data. However, the 480
> > is certainly a more capable unit but more difficult in that regard.
> >
> I can't image a 480 being more capable than a G-1000 with WAAS.

Well, our G1000 C-182 doesn't have WAAS yet, but I don't expect that
holds will be added during that upgrade. The G1000 works like the 430.
When it comes to holds you go into suspend and you have to drive it
around the hold. The only difference between the G1000 and 430 with
regard to holds/procedure turns is that the G1000 automatically
resequences when inbound vs. the 430 that you have to press the
OBS/SUSPEND button to start sequencing again.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I've done instructing in the G1000 (430 basically) and found that the
>>>most difficult (at least VFR) thing for pilots to learn is how to
>>>change pages and manipulate the cursor to enter data. However, the 480
>>>is certainly a more capable unit but more difficult in that regard.
>>>
>>
>>I can't image a 480 being more capable than a G-1000 with WAAS.
>
>
> Well, our G1000 C-182 doesn't have WAAS yet, but I don't expect that
> holds will be added during that upgrade. The G1000 works like the 430.
> When it comes to holds you go into suspend and you have to drive it
> around the hold. The only difference between the G1000 and 430 with
> regard to holds/procedure turns is that the G1000 automatically
> resequences when inbound vs. the 430 that you have to press the
> OBS/SUSPEND button to start sequencing again.
>
> -Robert
>

I can only speak to a 530. In a hold in lieu of PT, it automatically
sequences after one circuit, no SUSPEND. When you go into a missed
approach hold it does go into SUSPEND and remains there "forever" until
you decide to leave the hold.

The positive course guidance in a 400/500W is dependent upon having a
roll steering autopilot. I doubt your 182 has a roll steering
autopilot. But, even then, once you have the W upgrade the magenta
flight track will be spot on for a charted hold or procedure turn and
will account for your groundspeed.

Sam Spade wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I can only speak to a 530. In a hold in lieu of PT, it automatically
> sequences after one circuit, no SUSPEND. When you go into a missed
> approach hold it does go into SUSPEND and remains there "forever" until
> you decide to leave the hold.

Are we speaking of the same thing? In the 480 you tell it to hold, give
it the turn direction, leg length etc and it flys the hold. I've not
seen that in any other GPS product.

> The positive course guidance in a 400/500W is dependent upon having a
> roll steering autopilot. I doubt your 182 has a roll steering
> autopilot.

Yes, the 182T does. Its not even 1 year old yet. It has a nice KAP140
autopilot. Totally hands off. Flys a full ILS down to minimums w/o
touching it. The only thing it doesn't do is fly the hold.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>I can only speak to a 530. In a hold in lieu of PT, it automatically
>>sequences after one circuit, no SUSPEND. When you go into a missed
>>approach hold it does go into SUSPEND and remains there "forever" until
>>you decide to leave the hold.
>
>
> Are we speaking of the same thing? In the 480 you tell it to hold, give
> it the turn direction, leg length etc and it flys the hold. I've not
> seen that in any other GPS product.

No, I think you are speaking of holds not in the database. Sounds like
the 480 does a nice job of that. I am speaking of charted approach
chart holds.
>
>
>>The positive course guidance in a 400/500W is dependent upon having a
>>roll steering autopilot. I doubt your 182 has a roll steering
>>autopilot.
>
>
> Yes, the 182T does. Its not even 1 year old yet. It has a nice KAP140
> autopilot. Totally hands off. Flys a full ILS down to minimums w/o
> touching it. The only thing it doesn't do is fly the hold.
>

It will most likely fly the hold with a W mod.

Sam Spade wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> > Are we speaking of the same thing? In the 480 you tell it to hold, give
> > it the turn direction, leg length etc and it flys the hold. I've not
> > seen that in any other GPS product.
>
> No, I think you are speaking of holds not in the database. Sounds like
> the 480 does a nice job of that. I am speaking of charted approach
> chart holds.

Did this change in the 430 with WAAS? From my teaching in the 430 and
G1000 when you cross the holding fix it just goes into suspend mode
(with a suggested entry procedure). The 480 actually figures the entry
procedure and flys it, you never touch the yoke. Does the 430 WAAS unit
fly the entry procedure?

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> Does the 430 WAAS unit fly the entry procedure?

If the sim for the GNS430W is to be believed, yes it will, assuming of
course it is coupled with an appropriate AP.

--
Peter

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Are we speaking of the same thing? In the 480 you tell it to hold, give
>>>it the turn direction, leg length etc and it flys the hold. I've not
>>>seen that in any other GPS product.
>>
>>No, I think you are speaking of holds not in the database. Sounds like
>>the 480 does a nice job of that. I am speaking of charted approach
>>chart holds.
>
>
> Did this change in the 430 with WAAS? From my teaching in the 430 and
> G1000 when you cross the holding fix it just goes into suspend mode
> (with a suggested entry procedure). The 480 actually figures the entry
> procedure and flys it, you never touch the yoke. Does the 430 WAAS unit
> fly the entry procedure?
>
> -Robert
>

In the 400/500 series it goes into suspend and displays a message with
the recommended entry procedure. It does graphically show the entry
track. The 400/500 W series do (I have only used the trainer).

Only one lap around a HIL pattern is allowed then suspend drops out. On
a missed approach hold suspend does not drop out.

Peter R. wrote:

> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>
>>Does the 430 WAAS unit fly the entry procedure?
>
>
> If the sim for the GNS430W is to be believed, yes it will, assuming of
> course it is coupled with an appropriate AP.
>

With a roll steering autopilot it will.

>> Does the 430 WAAS unit fly the entry procedure?
>
> If the sim for the GNS430W is to be believed, yes it will, assuming of
> course it is coupled with an appropriate AP.
>
> --
> Peter
>

I am really interested to hear how many of us have actually been asked to
fly a Holding pattern by ATC in the recent past ?

Roy

Roy N5804F > wrote:

> I am really interested to hear how many of us have actually been asked to
> fly a Holding pattern by ATC in the recent past ?

It is more common than you think, assuming you routinely fly IFR to
uncontrolled airports (at least in the Northeast US). While certainly not
a lot, I have been asked twice over the year I was commuting to Dunkirk,
NY, to momentarily hold due to another IFR aircraft ahead of me flying the
approach.

Additionally, on frequency I have heard holding instructions go out to
every aircraft (air carriers and GA alike) approaching the big three NY
airports when a line of t-storms was about to move through.

The point being that the more you fly IFR, the more likely you will
encounter a request to hold.

--
Peter

Roy N5804F wrote:

>
>
>>>Does the 430 WAAS unit fly the entry procedure?
>>
>>If the sim for the GNS430W is to be believed, yes it will, assuming of
>>course it is coupled with an appropriate AP.
>>
>>--
>>Peter
>>
>
>
> I am really interested to hear how many of us have actually been asked to
> fly a Holding pattern by ATC in the recent past ?
>
> Roy
>
>
>
The holding pattern that the Garmin 400/500 have are flown a lot and
without ATC request. They are the course-reversal hold (known as "HIL"
or hold-in-lieu-of procedure turn) and the missed approach holding pattern.

These holds are far more prevelant today as RNAV procedures increase in
ron-radar areas.

Peter R. wrote:


> Additionally, on frequency I have heard holding instructions go out to
> every aircraft (air carriers and GA alike) approaching the big three NY
> airports when a line of t-storms was about to move through.
>
> The point being that the more you fly IFR, the more likely you will
> encounter a request to hold.
>

Airliners sometimes hold for an hour, or more on STARS serving JFK, EWR,
and LGA. Holding west of Boston is very common, too.

Sam Spade wrote:
> Peter R. wrote:
>
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Does the 430 WAAS unit fly the entry procedure?
> >
> >
> > If the sim for the GNS430W is to be believed, yes it will, assuming of
> > course it is coupled with an appropriate AP.
> >
>
> With a roll steering autopilot it will.

That's a motivation to upgrade the G1000 to WAAS. However, I just read
somewhere that the rumor is that the WAAS G1000 systems will not drive
VNAV to the KAP140. So you won't be able to fly fully coupled VNAV
approachs with the KAP140 (even though you can fly a fully coupled ILS
with it). Not sure what the techical limitation is but Garmin's
solution is to upgrade to their Garmin autopilot (which I don't believe
is certified for many applications yet). However, that will fix the
issue of having to set the barometer 3 times (G1000, KAP140, standby
alttitude) since the Garmin autopilot will take the baro setting from
the G1000 directly.


-Robert

"Roy N5804F" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
> I am really interested to hear how many of us have actually been asked to
> fly a Holding pattern by ATC in the recent past ?
>

Excluding HIL-type course reversals in approaches, I have had to hold at
least twice in IMC during the last year or so, always due to more than one
aircraft trying to get into and out of the same untowered fields. And I
hear it over the radio fairly frequently, for one to hold as another
completes the approach.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>
>
> That's a motivation to upgrade the G1000 to WAAS. However, I just read
> somewhere that the rumor is that the WAAS G1000 systems will not drive
> VNAV to the KAP140. So you won't be able to fly fully coupled VNAV
> approachs with the KAP140 (even though you can fly a fully coupled ILS
> with it).

If an LNAV approach has VNAV minimums will you be able to use DA or will
you have to use the MDA concept?

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 11:17:15 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:

>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> That's a motivation to upgrade the G1000 to WAAS. However, I just read
>> somewhere that the rumor is that the WAAS G1000 systems will not drive
>> VNAV to the KAP140. So you won't be able to fly fully coupled VNAV
>> approachs with the KAP140 (even though you can fly a fully coupled ILS
>> with it).
>
>If an LNAV approach has VNAV minimums will you be able to use DA or will
>you have to use the MDA concept?

On the Jepp charts, the LNAV/VNAV minimums are designated as DA.

The LNAV approaches have an MDA.

Perhaps what you are asking is whether the MDA on an LNAV approach with
advisory vertical guidance can be treated as a DA. When last I checked
(with the local FSDO) this was in a state of flux. However, the written
guidance from Garmin indicates that LNAV approaches should be flown using
the MDA concept, even if there is advisory vertical guidance.

Could be confusing also in that the annunciation on the CNX80 of an LNAV
approach with advisory vertical guidance is LNAV/VNAV.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

>
> Perhaps what you are asking is whether the MDA on an LNAV approach with
> advisory vertical guidance can be treated as a DA. When last I checked
> (with the local FSDO) this was in a state of flux. However, the written
> guidance from Garmin indicates that LNAV approaches should be flown using
> the MDA concept, even if there is advisory vertical guidance.

I was actually asking all of the above. ;-) My take on it would be the
case of advisory vertical guidance on an LNAV-only approach with the
"approved operator" note cannot be used as a DA unless you have a letter
of authorization.

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:03:10 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:

>I was actually asking all of the above. ;-) My take on it would be the
>case of advisory vertical guidance on an LNAV-only approach with the
>"approved operator" note cannot be used as a DA unless you have a letter
>of authorization.

When I spoke with the local FSDO, which was shortly after the advisory
vertical guidance became available, that was their take also. But they
were not sure what the eventual status would be for Part 91 small a/c
operators.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:03:10 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>I was actually asking all of the above. ;-) My take on it would be the
>>case of advisory vertical guidance on an LNAV-only approach with the
>>"approved operator" note cannot be used as a DA unless you have a letter
>>of authorization.
>
>
> When I spoke with the local FSDO, which was shortly after the advisory
> vertical guidance became available, that was their take also. But they
> were not sure what the eventual status would be for Part 91 small a/c
> operators.
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

As a practical matter it is much to do about very little ;-)

When you arrive at MDA using the "advisory" vertical guidance (which,
according to my contact at Garmin is more than advisory, in the sense it
is primary vertical guidance and assures stepdown fixes) you are at the
same place as the approved operator with DA would be. So, if you see
the right stuff you land, if not you can either level off at MDA and go
to the MAP or just missed immediately.

If the feds eventually say you will use the DA concept then you would
have to miss immediately if you did not have the required visual references.

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>>
>> The 480 is more capable (has holds, etc), but the 430 is *MUCH* easier
>> to use.
>
>
> I disagree. If you are unsullied by having used the 430, it's much
> easier to run the 480. The user interface is FAR superior on the
> 480. The only thing that the 430 has going for it is it carries
> forth the legacy of the entire Garmin previous handheld/panel mount
> behavior.

The other thing the 400/500 carries is the foundation for understanding
the nav aspects of a G-1000, irrespective of aircraft the G-1000 is
installed in.

Sam Spade wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > That's a motivation to upgrade the G1000 to WAAS. However, I just read
> > somewhere that the rumor is that the WAAS G1000 systems will not drive
> > VNAV to the KAP140. So you won't be able to fly fully coupled VNAV
> > approachs with the KAP140 (even though you can fly a fully coupled ILS
> > with it).
>
> If an LNAV approach has VNAV minimums will you be able to use DA or will
> you have to use the MDA concept?

I don't believe a coupled autopilot is a requirement for the VNAV so I
assume I would be able to fly to DA once the G1000 has WAAS.
-Robert

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 07:22:51 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:03:10 -0800, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was actually asking all of the above. ;-) My take on it would be the
>>>case of advisory vertical guidance on an LNAV-only approach with the
>>>"approved operator" note cannot be used as a DA unless you have a letter
>>>of authorization.
>>
>>
>> When I spoke with the local FSDO, which was shortly after the advisory
>> vertical guidance became available, that was their take also. But they
>> were not sure what the eventual status would be for Part 91 small a/c
>> operators.
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
>As a practical matter it is much to do about very little ;-)
>
>When you arrive at MDA using the "advisory" vertical guidance (which,
>according to my contact at Garmin is more than advisory, in the sense it
>is primary vertical guidance and assures stepdown fixes) you are at the
>same place as the approved operator with DA would be. So, if you see
>the right stuff you land, if not you can either level off at MDA and go
>to the MAP or just missed immediately.
>
>If the feds eventually say you will use the DA concept then you would
>have to miss immediately if you did not have the required visual references.

Which would be a shame since, in many instances, the intersection of the
generated glide path with the MDA may be further from the AER than the
minimum visibility. e.g. at EPM it is 1.3 mi from the MAP but the
visibility minimum is 1.0 miles.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>That's a motivation to upgrade the G1000 to WAAS. However, I just read
>>>somewhere that the rumor is that the WAAS G1000 systems will not drive
>>>VNAV to the KAP140. So you won't be able to fly fully coupled VNAV
>>>approachs with the KAP140 (even though you can fly a fully coupled ILS
>>>with it).
>>
>>If an LNAV approach has VNAV minimums will you be able to use DA or will
>>you have to use the MDA concept?
>
>
> I don't believe a coupled autopilot is a requirement for the VNAV so I
> assume I would be able to fly to DA once the G1000 has WAAS.
> -Robert
>
I would agree for L/VNAV but not for LNAV+V