Need a 2nd nav with GNS 430?

[Paul Folbrecht]

I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
panel. Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches in
the near future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver to
identify intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the 430
does have one nav radio built-in.

Only problematic area I can think of are the cases where 2 VOR receivers
are pretty much necessary - to identify FAFs on ILS, LOC, and VOR (no
GPS overlay) approaches. I release that ILS's almost always have an OM
anyway and VOR IAPs w/no GPS overlay become scarcer by the month. With
WAAS.. much less of a problem all around (WAAS precision approaches).

If I decide I can do without another nav I save $2000 going with a SL-40
(com only) vs a SL-30 (nav/com).

Interesting in hearing from people with 430s (and up) how they are
flying the things.

(As for navigating with the 430 tango uniform - there's ATC vectors &
the backup handheld GPS.)

[Roy Smith]

Paul Folbrecht > wrote:
> I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
> wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
> panel. Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches in
> the near future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver to
> identify intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the 430
> does have one nav radio built-in.

In theory, you can fly all day with just the single GPS/NAV/COM. Just keep
going waypoint to waypoint to waypoint, with maybe an ILS approach at the
end, and some vectors thrown in.

But, there are still a couple of reasons you want a second NAV receiver.

1) If #1 goes TU, you're not SOL (ok, you covered that below).

2) Sometimes it's just plain easier to use the #2 NAV. You're in the
middle of programming an approach on the GPS when the guy says, "Fly direct
FOO VOR and hold". You could go direct FOO on the GPS, but it's often more
convenient to use the #2 NAV for something like that so you don't have to
interrupt what you're doing on the GPS.

> If I decide I can do without another nav I save $2000 going with a SL-40
> (com only) vs a SL-30 (nav/com).
>
> Interesting in hearing from people with 430s (and up) how they are
> flying the things.

Most of my club's planes are equipped with a CNX-80/GNS-480 and an SL-30.
If not an SL-30, then some other kind of NAV/COM. I find I do most of my
flying with the #1 radio, but I still wouldn't want to be without the #2.
I set them both up on an ILS. I'll use the #2 NAV to quickly get going in
the right direction, when the GPS is tied up programming something
complicated that I don't want to interrupt.

How about a clearance like this... "Depart Carmel on the 270 radial to
intercept the Sparta 030 radial, then direct Sparta". That's a real
clearance that you sometimes get out of HPN (I'm guessing on the exact
radials). That's a tough one to execute with just the single GPS. It's
probably not impossible, but having the 2nd nav sure makes it simplier.

The bottom line is you can probably get away without the #2 NAV. I
wouldn't want to, but it's not my $2k we're talking about spending :-)

[Mike Rapoport]

You might want to consider a 530 instead of a 430. On the 530 you can opt
to show the distance and radial from whatever VOR is tuned. This basically
lets you show two waypoints (one VOR and one GPS) at a time. You can even
have the VOR output to an indicator if the indicator will take composite
input (while in GPS mode). I think that the 430 will also output a
composite signal (VOR (or LOC). The advantage of the 530 is that it gives
you distance and doesn't require another indicator.

Mike
MU-2


"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
>I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
>wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the panel.
>Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches in the near
>future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver to identify
>intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the 430 does have
>one nav radio built-in.
>
> Only problematic area I can think of are the cases where 2 VOR receivers
> are pretty much necessary - to identify FAFs on ILS, LOC, and VOR (no GPS
> overlay) approaches. I release that ILS's almost always have an OM anyway
> and VOR IAPs w/no GPS overlay become scarcer by the month. With WAAS..
> much less of a problem all around (WAAS precision approaches).
>
> If I decide I can do without another nav I save $2000 going with a SL-40
> (com only) vs a SL-30 (nav/com).
>
> Interesting in hearing from people with 430s (and up) how they are flying
> the things.
>
> (As for navigating with the 430 tango uniform - there's ATC vectors & the
> backup handheld GPS.)
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

Points taken. Thanks for the feedback. I'm now learning how to use a
430 (in a 172 RG I'm using for my complex endorsement) but not all this
stuff is clear yet.

I know it's only $2K, but my panel is over $20K as it is, equipment only
(building the panel is the only part of my aircraft, other than painting
it, that I don't plan to do myself). I am looking to save a bit here
and there. I had wanted to keep it to $25K ready to install.

On a related note, here's a great reason to fly a kitplane:
http://www.grtavionics.com/efis_horizond_series_1.htm


Roy Smith wrote:

> Paul Folbrecht > wrote:
>
>>I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
>>wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
>>panel. Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches in
>>the near future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver to
>>identify intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the 430
>>does have one nav radio built-in.
>
>
> In theory, you can fly all day with just the single GPS/NAV/COM. Just keep
> going waypoint to waypoint to waypoint, with maybe an ILS approach at the
> end, and some vectors thrown in.
>
> But, there are still a couple of reasons you want a second NAV receiver.
>
> 1) If #1 goes TU, you're not SOL (ok, you covered that below).
>
> 2) Sometimes it's just plain easier to use the #2 NAV. You're in the
> middle of programming an approach on the GPS when the guy says, "Fly direct
> FOO VOR and hold". You could go direct FOO on the GPS, but it's often more
> convenient to use the #2 NAV for something like that so you don't have to
> interrupt what you're doing on the GPS.
>
>
>>If I decide I can do without another nav I save $2000 going with a SL-40
>>(com only) vs a SL-30 (nav/com).
>>
>>Interesting in hearing from people with 430s (and up) how they are
>>flying the things.
>
>
> Most of my club's planes are equipped with a CNX-80/GNS-480 and an SL-30.
> If not an SL-30, then some other kind of NAV/COM. I find I do most of my
> flying with the #1 radio, but I still wouldn't want to be without the #2.
> I set them both up on an ILS. I'll use the #2 NAV to quickly get going in
> the right direction, when the GPS is tied up programming something
> complicated that I don't want to interrupt.
>
> How about a clearance like this... "Depart Carmel on the 270 radial to
> intercept the Sparta 030 radial, then direct Sparta". That's a real
> clearance that you sometimes get out of HPN (I'm guessing on the exact
> radials). That's a tough one to execute with just the single GPS. It's
> probably not impossible, but having the 2nd nav sure makes it simplier.
>
> The bottom line is you can probably get away without the #2 NAV. I
> wouldn't want to, but it's not my $2k we're talking about spending :-)

[Paul Folbrecht]

530 is out of my price range.

The 430 does output a composite signal. An indicator is not needed with
the GRT EFIS - it talks to the 430 very nicely.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> You might want to consider a 530 instead of a 430. On the 530 you can opt
> to show the distance and radial from whatever VOR is tuned. This basically
> lets you show two waypoints (one VOR and one GPS) at a time. You can even
> have the VOR output to an indicator if the indicator will take composite
> input (while in GPS mode). I think that the 430 will also output a
> composite signal (VOR (or LOC). The advantage of the 530 is that it gives
> you distance and doesn't require another indicator.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

[G. Sylvester]

Roy Smith wrote:
> How about a clearance like this... "Depart Carmel on the 270 radial to
> intercept the Sparta 030 radial, then direct Sparta". That's a real
> clearance that you sometimes get out of HPN (I'm guessing on the exact
> radials). That's a tough one to execute with just the single GPS. It's
> probably not impossible, but having the 2nd nav sure makes it simplier.

The standard route from SQL to STS is 'RV SAU SAU R-330 STS R-141 COATI
Direct" To do that on a G430 + 2nd nav is not difficult. The easier
way is to know that SAU R-330 STS R-141 is also known as BURDE. I don't
know they don't use that intersection by name. Anyway, knowing it is
BURDE makes the GPS use a snap. I guess my point is, check out the DP
and IAP and maybe that clearance becomes easy with a single GPS.

Gerald

[Brad Salai]

How do your members like the 480? Our club is going to upgrade three of our
airplanes with IFR gps's. Our maintenance officer is a big fan of the 430,
but some members want bigger units and are looking at the 530. The rational
for staying away from the 480 varies, but includes:

Harder to use,
Garmin may discontinue it,
Don't like soft keys ,
430/530 installed base is much bigger, therefore, guarenteed to be around,
Cheaper initially, and don't need waas now, so why pay for it.

I'd be interested in your opinion, having flown with the 480.

Brad
"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Folbrecht > wrote:
> > I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
> > wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
> > panel. Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches in
> > the near future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver to
> > identify intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the 430
> > does have one nav radio built-in.
>
> In theory, you can fly all day with just the single GPS/NAV/COM. Just
keep
> going waypoint to waypoint to waypoint, with maybe an ILS approach at the
> end, and some vectors thrown in.
>
> But, there are still a couple of reasons you want a second NAV receiver.
>
> 1) If #1 goes TU, you're not SOL (ok, you covered that below).
>
> 2) Sometimes it's just plain easier to use the #2 NAV. You're in the
> middle of programming an approach on the GPS when the guy says, "Fly
direct
> FOO VOR and hold". You could go direct FOO on the GPS, but it's often
more
> convenient to use the #2 NAV for something like that so you don't have to
> interrupt what you're doing on the GPS.
>
> > If I decide I can do without another nav I save $2000 going with a SL-40
> > (com only) vs a SL-30 (nav/com).
> >
> > Interesting in hearing from people with 430s (and up) how they are
> > flying the things.
>
> Most of my club's planes are equipped with a CNX-80/GNS-480 and an SL-30.
> If not an SL-30, then some other kind of NAV/COM. I find I do most of my
> flying with the #1 radio, but I still wouldn't want to be without the #2.
> I set them both up on an ILS. I'll use the #2 NAV to quickly get going in
> the right direction, when the GPS is tied up programming something
> complicated that I don't want to interrupt.
>
> How about a clearance like this... "Depart Carmel on the 270 radial to
> intercept the Sparta 030 radial, then direct Sparta". That's a real
> clearance that you sometimes get out of HPN (I'm guessing on the exact
> radials). That's a tough one to execute with just the single GPS. It's
> probably not impossible, but having the 2nd nav sure makes it simplier.
>
> The bottom line is you can probably get away without the #2 NAV. I
> wouldn't want to, but it's not my $2k we're talking about spending :-)

[Roy Smith]

"Brad Salai" > wrote:

> How do your members like the 480? Our club is going to upgrade three of our
> airplanes with IFR gps's. Our maintenance officer is a big fan of the 430,
> but some members want bigger units and are looking at the 530. The rational
> for staying away from the 480 varies, but includes:
>
> Harder to use,
> Garmin may discontinue it,
> Don't like soft keys ,
> 430/530 installed base is much bigger, therefore, guarenteed to be around,
> Cheaper initially, and don't need waas now, so why pay for it.
>
> I'd be interested in your opinion, having flown with the 480.

We're happy with the 480 (otherwise we wouldn't have bought 6 of them). I
don't have that much time with the 430, but from what I can see, it's a
nice unit too.

There is no doubt that there's a learning curve to the 480, but once you've
learned it, it's great. As far as screen size goes, bigger is better.

As for discontinuing it, nobody really knows what Garmin's plans are. I've
heard rumors that they're going to discontinue the 480, and I've also heard
rumors that they're going to discontinue the 430. At this point, it's all
just rumors. If you can pin a Garmin rep down to making a definitive
statement one way or the other, please let me know!

[Jose]

> wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the panel.

Don't put all your eggs in one box.

1: the display fails, you're toast. HYBT
2: RAIM error in IMC is also inconvenient. BTDT
3: if you can't update the database (such as you're in the middle of a
trip during the window) you can't do IMC anymore. BTDT - at Sun'n'Fun,
no less.
4: you're in some bumpy clouds, reach over to switch off the strobes or
switch on the pitot heat or something, and a bump causes you to hit the
master. Oops - flip it back on. VORs come right back. NAV comes right
back. ADF comes right back. DME comes right back. GPS begins to
acquire satellites, do its self test, and waits for you to push the
lawyer button before continuing. Meanwhile, you're doing 150 knots in
the soup and just got an amended clearance. BTDT
5: New clearances are often easier to dial into a VOR to start with, so
while you push the GPS buttons you're at least flying the clearance. BTDT
6: If you have an electrical failure in IMC, you may need to decide
what units to leave on the battery and what units to shut off. I don't
know the 430's current draw; you may be better off with just a single
VOR in some cases (though I wouldn't be surprised if the old VOR
receivers draw more than the new GPSs). BTDT, though without the 430.

That's just a start.

Jose
(r.a.h retained, though I don't follow that group)
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[paul kgyy]

Put in a used KX125 as backup. I use it for atis/awos and monthly VOR
integrity checks.

Another option: purchase a portable GPS and portable comm to use as
backup. Only catch here is the difficulty of doing approaches.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Paul Folbrecht > writes:

> I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
> wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
> panel. [...]
> (As for navigating with the 430 tango uniform - there's ATC vectors &
> the backup handheld GPS.)

If you're planning to fly IFR in IMC up here in Canada, be aware that
the regulations require sufficient navigational equipment on board so
that, should you suffer the failure of any one, you can still make an
instrument approach at a suitable alternative. (Is there no similar
rule in the States?)

This appears to rule out having only a single integrated navigational
widget installed in the cockpit. (I don't believe a handheld GPS
qualifies as a loophole.)

- FChE

[Mike Rapoport]

Will the EIFS accept composite?

Mike
MU-2


"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> 530 is out of my price range.
>
> The 430 does output a composite signal. An indicator is not needed with
> the GRT EFIS - it talks to the 430 very nicely.
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>> You might want to consider a 530 instead of a 430. On the 530 you can
>> opt to show the distance and radial from whatever VOR is tuned. This
>> basically lets you show two waypoints (one VOR and one GPS) at a time.
>> You can even have the VOR output to an indicator if the indicator will
>> take composite input (while in GPS mode). I think that the 430 will also
>> output a composite signal (VOR (or LOC). The advantage of the 530 is
>> that it gives you distance and doesn't require another indicator.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>

[Michael]

You can do everything you need to do with the 430, but there are
situations where havng only one is inconvenient. For about $250 you
can buy an M1 LORAN. Now you get a second set of nav signals
independent of GPS, you can get bearing and distance to any fix at
accuracies better than VOR-DME, and the UI is very easy to learn and
use. And there's a CDI built right into the panel if you want it -
almost no wiring.

Spending $2K for a VOR seems excessive when this is an option.

Michael

[[email protected]]

One of the really big plus's for the 530 over the 430 are two nav map pages,
both of which provide their particular great info, and of course, are easy to
read.

The downside is the lack of an airway database and the meager flight plan memory
(20 flight plans with a max of 31 WPs, each. My 296 does 50 with 300 WPs,
each).

Brad Salai wrote:

> How do your members like the 480? Our club is going to upgrade three of our
> airplanes with IFR gps's. Our maintenance officer is a big fan of the 430,
> but some members want bigger units and are looking at the 530. The rational
> for staying away from the 480 varies, but includes:
>
> Harder to use,
> Garmin may discontinue it,
> Don't like soft keys ,
> 430/530 installed base is much bigger, therefore, guarenteed to be around,
> Cheaper initially, and don't need waas now, so why pay for it.
>
> I'd be interested in your opinion, having flown with the 480.
>
> Brad
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Paul Folbrecht > wrote:
> > > I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
> > > wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
> > > panel. Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches in
> > > the near future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver to
> > > identify intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the 430
> > > does have one nav radio built-in.
> >
> > In theory, you can fly all day with just the single GPS/NAV/COM. Just
> keep
> > going waypoint to waypoint to waypoint, with maybe an ILS approach at the
> > end, and some vectors thrown in.
> >
> > But, there are still a couple of reasons you want a second NAV receiver.
> >
> > 1) If #1 goes TU, you're not SOL (ok, you covered that below).
> >
> > 2) Sometimes it's just plain easier to use the #2 NAV. You're in the
> > middle of programming an approach on the GPS when the guy says, "Fly
> direct
> > FOO VOR and hold". You could go direct FOO on the GPS, but it's often
> more
> > convenient to use the #2 NAV for something like that so you don't have to
> > interrupt what you're doing on the GPS.
> >
> > > If I decide I can do without another nav I save $2000 going with a SL-40
> > > (com only) vs a SL-30 (nav/com).
> > >
> > > Interesting in hearing from people with 430s (and up) how they are
> > > flying the things.
> >
> > Most of my club's planes are equipped with a CNX-80/GNS-480 and an SL-30.
> > If not an SL-30, then some other kind of NAV/COM. I find I do most of my
> > flying with the #1 radio, but I still wouldn't want to be without the #2.
> > I set them both up on an ILS. I'll use the #2 NAV to quickly get going in
> > the right direction, when the GPS is tied up programming something
> > complicated that I don't want to interrupt.
> >
> > How about a clearance like this... "Depart Carmel on the 270 radial to
> > intercept the Sparta 030 radial, then direct Sparta". That's a real
> > clearance that you sometimes get out of HPN (I'm guessing on the exact
> > radials). That's a tough one to execute with just the single GPS. It's
> > probably not impossible, but having the 2nd nav sure makes it simplier.
> >
> > The bottom line is you can probably get away without the #2 NAV. I
> > wouldn't want to, but it's not my $2k we're talking about spending :-)

[Chuck]

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
> wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
> panel. Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches
in
> the near future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver
to
> identify intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the
430
> does have one nav radio built-in.
>
Paul,

I replaced my #1 radio/nav (a KX170B) with a 430 about a year ago and
keeping the #2 KX170B. I continue to use the com of the #2 and
consider it a "necessary". The nav of the #2 is now used for backup
and I do not feel it is necessary. I have a Garmin 195 on the yoke and
I could use it as emergency backup if the 430 went TU. Save the $2k or
not -- it's your call but I agree you can get along fine without the
second nav.

Chuck
Archer 2185B

[Scott Moore]

Michael wrote:
> You can do everything you need to do with the 430, but there are
> situations where havng only one is inconvenient. For about $250 you
> can buy an M1 LORAN. Now you get a second set of nav signals

You can get one for less than $250. Just look in the garbage can
behind any avionics shop.

[Scott Moore]

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
> wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
> panel. Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches in
> the near future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver to
> identify intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the 430
> does have one nav radio built-in.
>
> Only problematic area I can think of are the cases where 2 VOR receivers
> are pretty much necessary - to identify FAFs on ILS, LOC, and VOR (no
> GPS overlay) approaches. I release that ILS's almost always have an OM
> anyway and VOR IAPs w/no GPS overlay become scarcer by the month. With
> WAAS.. much less of a problem all around (WAAS precision approaches).
>
> If I decide I can do without another nav I save $2000 going with a SL-40
> (com only) vs a SL-30 (nav/com).
>
> Interesting in hearing from people with 430s (and up) how they are
> flying the things.
>
> (As for navigating with the 430 tango uniform - there's ATC vectors &
> the backup handheld GPS.)
>

The 430 has separate VOR/GS recievers and GPS. As this group has discussed,
they are really separate inside the box, as in don't share any circuitry.
The points of failure, however, would be the power in and the display.
However, the display, if it packs in, would leave the VOR running on
the last frequency you set, but without any capability to change it.

Me, I left the original Cessna VOR in, and didn't upgrade to glideslope
on it.

[Peter R.]

Jose wrote:

> 3: if you can't update the database (such as you're in the middle of
a
> trip during the window) you can't do IMC anymore. BTDT - at
Sun'n'Fun,
> no less.

Is this a specific limitation spelled out in Garmin's POH supplement?
Not that I have done this due to burning my own cards and maintaining a
current subscription, but I was under the impression that one could
even fly an approach with an expired database, as long as a) the GPS
supplement doesn't restrict this and b) the pilot verifies the GPS
approach with a published approach plate.

If you burn your own database cards, you will note that the database
update for the Garmin GNS430/530 is normally released (at least here in
the US) ten days or so before becoming current. I suppose it is not
unrealistic to be away from home longer than ten days, but that does
provide some amount of time to plan for the expiration.

BTW, you raise some excellent points about the GPS being a single point
of failure. I also have also experienced three different GPS problems
during three different flights that rendered the unit inoperative for
five minutes or so per event. One was my fault, as I opened a bottle
of water at altitude that sprayed all over the GPS, thanks to the
pressure difference. The MSG button temporarily shorted out and I
could not see any page except the message page.

The other two problems were GPS software related. Of these two, the
notable one occurred when the database card I had in the unit became
*current* during my flight (at the crack of 00:00z of the new day - I
had placed the card in a day early for the flight). This was a
Bendix-King KLN-94 GPS and at the crack of 00z, a message appeared
stating that the unit needed to be rebooted due to the database
becoming current. Ridiculous of the unit to do this, but it caught me
with my pants down as the unit could not acquire satellites right away
upon rebooting. IMC at night and I did not have the VORs set as
backup. I scrambled to set up my VORs and only managed to drift off
course by a mile or two before getting back on course. That was a good
lesson.

--
Peter

[Jose]

>> 3: if you can't update the database (such as you're in the middle of
>> a trip during the window) you can't do IMC anymore. BTDT - at
>> Sun'n'Fun, no less.
>
>
> Is this a specific limitation spelled out in Garmin's POH supplement?
> Not that I have done this due to burning my own cards and maintaining a
> current subscription, but I was under the impression that one could
> even fly an approach with an expired database, as long as a) the GPS
> supplement doesn't restrict this and b) the pilot verifies the GPS
> approach with a published approach plate.

I don't know if it's spelled out in the POH supplement, and it's not
handy right now. If you do the approach and land uneventfully, you will
probably not have a problem. If you do the approach and have an
incident which brings you to the FAA's attention, you could probably
count on a "careless or reckless" charge. If there was a significant
change to the approach, it might be difficult (depending on the change)
to fly the mod by hand, since it's not in the box.

Yes, they give you ten days. In my case, the new database was burned to
a spare card before my flight, but I didn't have the spare card and
didn't know until the flight that the database was about to expire. At
Sun'n'Fun, I went to the Jepp booth to update my card, and there were
"no more updates available", meaning that my quota of burns had already
been burned (we have three aircraft and three subs). So, Jeppesen would
not update my card, and it took a bit of "discussion" and several long
distance phone calls before I could convince them to add one to my quota
and let me burn the update.

I consider this to be a safety-of-flight issue, and I wonder how Jepp
would come out after an accident.... no, actually I do know how they
would come out. "After all, I didn't have to make the flight in the
first place."

Jose
r.a.homebuilt retained, though I don't follow that group
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter R.]

Jose wrote:

> don't know if it's spelled out in the POH supplement, and it's not
> handy right now.
<snip>

I started to research this and the quickest place to find some info
about this was AOPA's GPS Safety Advisor. Sure the information is in
the AIM and I will get right back to it, but this was a faster link for
me:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa01.pdf

Pertinant Quote:

"For en route flying, it's legal - but not wise -
to use an expired database, as long as the pilot has
available current information, such as current low
altitude en route charts, to manually check and
correct any data that's changed."

I will look later for more details about approaches.

--
Peter

[Mike Rapoport]

I have three 430/530 installations, two in the MU-2 and one in the Helio.
None of the Flight Manual Supplements require a current database for
approaches.

Mike
MU-2

"Peter R." > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jose wrote:
>
>> 3: if you can't update the database (such as you're in the middle of
> a
>> trip during the window) you can't do IMC anymore. BTDT - at
> Sun'n'Fun,
>> no less.
>
> Is this a specific limitation spelled out in Garmin's POH supplement?
> Not that I have done this due to burning my own cards and maintaining a
> current subscription, but I was under the impression that one could
> even fly an approach with an expired database, as long as a) the GPS
> supplement doesn't restrict this and b) the pilot verifies the GPS
> approach with a published approach plate.
>
> If you burn your own database cards, you will note that the database
> update for the Garmin GNS430/530 is normally released (at least here in
> the US) ten days or so before becoming current. I suppose it is not
> unrealistic to be away from home longer than ten days, but that does
> provide some amount of time to plan for the expiration.
>
> BTW, you raise some excellent points about the GPS being a single point
> of failure. I also have also experienced three different GPS problems
> during three different flights that rendered the unit inoperative for
> five minutes or so per event. One was my fault, as I opened a bottle
> of water at altitude that sprayed all over the GPS, thanks to the
> pressure difference. The MSG button temporarily shorted out and I
> could not see any page except the message page.
>
> The other two problems were GPS software related. Of these two, the
> notable one occurred when the database card I had in the unit became
> *current* during my flight (at the crack of 00:00z of the new day - I
> had placed the card in a day early for the flight). This was a
> Bendix-King KLN-94 GPS and at the crack of 00z, a message appeared
> stating that the unit needed to be rebooted due to the database
> becoming current. Ridiculous of the unit to do this, but it caught me
> with my pants down as the unit could not acquire satellites right away
> upon rebooting. IMC at night and I did not have the VORs set as
> backup. I scrambled to set up my VORs and only managed to drift off
> course by a mile or two before getting back on course. That was a good
> lesson.
>
> --
> Peter
>

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 05 May 2005 00:22:53 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>I have three 430/530 installations, two in the MU-2 and one in the Helio.
>None of the Flight Manual Supplements require a current database for
>approaches.


Does the language in the GNS530 pilots guide, page 4:

"The database confirmation page appears next and shows the current
database information on the NavData card (with the valid operating
dates, cycle number and database type included). The database is
updated every 28 days and must be current for approved instrument
approach operations."

not create a requirement that the database be current to use the unit
for GPS or overlay approaches?

[Mike Rapoport]

No, it is the flight manual supplement that is controlling. There may be
different supplements out there with different requirments too.

Mike
MU-2


"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 00:22:53 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>>I have three 430/530 installations, two in the MU-2 and one in the Helio.
>>None of the Flight Manual Supplements require a current database for
>>approaches.
>
>
> Does the language in the GNS530 pilots guide, page 4:
>
> "The database confirmation page appears next and shows the current
> database information on the NavData card (with the valid operating
> dates, cycle number and database type included). The database is
> updated every 28 days and must be current for approved instrument
> approach operations."
>
> not create a requirement that the database be current to use the unit
> for GPS or overlay approaches?
>

[Jose]

>> Does the language in the GNS530 pilots guide, page 4:
>>
>> [...]The database is
>> updated every 28 days and must be current for approved instrument
>> approach operations."
>>
>> not create a requirement that the database be current to use the unit
>> for GPS or overlay approaches?
>
> No, it is the flight manual supplement that is controlling. There may be
> different supplements out there with different requirments too.

You don't think "careless and reckless" would occur to the FAA should
such operations come to their attention?

Jose
(r.a.homebuilt retained, though I don't follow that group)
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mike Rapoport]

No. The only FAA approved document is the Flight Manual Supplement.

Mike
MU-2


"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>>> Does the language in the GNS530 pilots guide, page 4:
>>>
>>> [...]The database is
>>> updated every 28 days and must be current for approved instrument
>>> approach operations."
>>>
>>> not create a requirement that the database be current to use the unit
>>> for GPS or overlay approaches?
>>
>> No, it is the flight manual supplement that is controlling. There may be
>> different supplements out there with different requirments too.
>
> You don't think "careless and reckless" would occur to the FAA should such
> operations come to their attention?
>
> Jose
> (r.a.homebuilt retained, though I don't follow that group)
> --
> Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Natalie]

Jose wrote:

> 3: if you can't update the database (such as you're in the middle of a
> trip during the window) you can't do IMC anymore. BTDT - at Sun'n'Fun,
> no less.

Chalk another one up for the 480...you can load two cycles up and it
auto switches.

> 4: you're in some bumpy clouds, reach over to switch off the strobes or
> switch on the pitot heat or something, and a bump causes you to hit the
> master. Oops - flip it back on. VORs come right back. NAV comes right
> back. ADF comes right back. DME comes right back. GPS begins to
> acquire satellites, do its self test, and waits for you to push the
> lawyer button before continuing. Meanwhile, you're doing 150 knots in
> the soup and just got an amended clearance. BTDT

Does not the 430 NAV section come up immeciately?


> 6: If you have an electrical failure in IMC, you may need to decide
> what units to leave on the battery and what units to shut off. I don't
> know the 430's current draw; you may be better off with just a single
> VOR in some cases (though I wouldn't be surprised if the old VOR
> receivers draw more than the new GPSs). BTDT, though without the 430.
>
Depends on what your other radio is. If it's comething modern like
an SL30, you're probably OK. But I was looking at the current draw
(again for the 480) and it doesn't draw much until you press the PTT
on the comm side.

[Jose]

> Does not the 430 NAV section come up immeciately?

Maybe the VOR part does, but the GPS doesn't. And if you've been
navigating by GPS, the VOR might not be set as a backup, but instead be
set for something else.

But it's a good point, and a good reason to have the 430 VOR set to back
up any navigation to/from VORs. Of course, navigating by GPS direct
this may not be that often.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Bryan Martin wrote:

> I would put a guard around that master switch so you can't accidentally
> switch it off. On my Zodiac, I put the master switch far away from any other
> switch I'm likely to reach for in flight. I have bumped it into the ON
> position with my knee once or twice while getting out of the plane so maybe
> I still need a guard on it.
>
>
> in article , Jose at
> wrote on 5/5/05 8:53 AM:
>
>
>>>Does not the 430 NAV section come up immeciately?
>>
>>Maybe the VOR part does, but the GPS doesn't. And if you've been
>>navigating by GPS, the VOR might not be set as a backup, but instead be
>>set for something else.
>>
>>But it's a good point, and a good reason to have the 430 VOR set to back
>>up any navigation to/from VORs. Of course, navigating by GPS direct
>>this may not be that often.
>>
>>Jose
>
>
Which brings me to my pet peeves about switches. I see too many people
put a row of identical swithes right above the knee near the bottom of
the panel. As you say they are too easy to bump getting in or out. They
could tear your knee up in an accident. The problem with them being
identical is there is no tactile difference when you reach for them.

Making switches that feel different is easy. Make shapes from aluminum
bar stock drill a hole in the shape then either epoxy or pin it to the
toggle using a roll pin or screw. This is how some switches used in
airliners and military aircraft are made. Another way takes a lottle
more work: you can thread the end of the toggle and have the shape screw
on. I have seen switches in fighters made this way.

Similar tricks can be used for rotary switches.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Bryan Martin wrote:

> Another method is to group the switches in some sort of logical sequence no
> more than four in a group. I have my master all the way to the left of the
> panel next to the alternator CB. My ignition selector switch and fuel pump
> selector switch are centered in front of me with their CBs. My four exterior
> lighting switches are further to the right separated from the other
> switches. All these switches have an identical feel but the grouping makes
> it unlikely that I'll get the wrong one.
>
> My switch panel is high enough that my knees won't hit it when I'm sitting
> in the cockpit but climbing in and out is a bit of a trick.
>
> A picture of my panel is on the Rouges Gallery site.
>
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/Photogallery2/BryanMartin/Panel.jpg
>
>

Not too shabby, but where are the cup holders?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Peter Clark]

I don't have one handy since I don't own one of these units, but don't
they have some language in the supplement that reads similar to "must
be operated in accordance with the pilots guide" or "see pilots guide
for further information"?

On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:15:34 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>No. The only FAA approved document is the Flight Manual Supplement.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
>
>"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Does the language in the GNS530 pilots guide, page 4:
>>>>
>>>> [...]The database is
>>>> updated every 28 days and must be current for approved instrument
>>>> approach operations."
>>>>
>>>> not create a requirement that the database be current to use the unit
>>>> for GPS or overlay approaches?
>>>
>>> No, it is the flight manual supplement that is controlling. There may be
>>> different supplements out there with different requirments too.
>>
>> You don't think "careless and reckless" would occur to the FAA should such
>> operations come to their attention?
>>
>> Jose
>> (r.a.homebuilt retained, though I don't follow that group)
>> --
>> Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
>> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
>

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Bryan Martin wrote:
> They're on my "to do" list. I may have to get one of those hats with the
> built-in can holders and straws but I don't think they'll work with a
> headset. :)
>
> in article kztee.5298$aB.4461@lakeread03, Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired at
> wrote on 5/5/05 2:26 PM:
>
>
>>Bryan Martin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Another method is to group the switches in some sort of logical sequence no
>>>more than four in a group. I have my master all the way to the left of the
>>>panel next to the alternator CB. My ignition selector switch and fuel pump
>>>selector switch are centered in front of me with their CBs. My four exterior
>>>lighting switches are further to the right separated from the other
>>>switches. All these switches have an identical feel but the grouping makes
>>>it unlikely that I'll get the wrong one.
>>>
>>>My switch panel is high enough that my knees won't hit it when I'm sitting
>>>in the cockpit but climbing in and out is a bit of a trick.
>>>
>>>A picture of my panel is on the Rouges Gallery site.
>>>
>>>http://www.alexisparkinn.com/Photogallery2/BryanMartin/Panel.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Not too shabby, but where are the cup holders?
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>

Be creative, invent a cupholder cap that will allow headsets and patent it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Mike Rapoport]

Mine doesn't, others may vary.

Mike
MU-2


"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>I don't have one handy since I don't own one of these units, but don't
> they have some language in the supplement that reads similar to "must
> be operated in accordance with the pilots guide" or "see pilots guide
> for further information"?
>
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:15:34 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>>No. The only FAA approved document is the Flight Manual Supplement.
>>
>>Mike
>>MU-2
>>
>>
>>"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> Does the language in the GNS530 pilots guide, page 4:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]The database is
>>>>> updated every 28 days and must be current for approved instrument
>>>>> approach operations."
>>>>>
>>>>> not create a requirement that the database be current to use the unit
>>>>> for GPS or overlay approaches?
>>>>
>>>> No, it is the flight manual supplement that is controlling. There may
>>>> be
>>>> different supplements out there with different requirments too.
>>>
>>> You don't think "careless and reckless" would occur to the FAA should
>>> such
>>> operations come to their attention?
>>>
>>> Jose
>>> (r.a.homebuilt retained, though I don't follow that group)
>>> --
>>> Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
>>> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
>>
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

A LORAN in an RV!! Oh, that is a hoot! I think that would be a first.

No offense.

Scott Moore wrote:

> Michael wrote:
>
>>You can do everything you need to do with the 430, but there are
>>situations where havng only one is inconvenient. For about $250 you
>>can buy an M1 LORAN. Now you get a second set of nav signals
>
>
> You can get one for less than $250. Just look in the garbage can
> behind any avionics shop.
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

Well, I just got caught up on this thread - it's gone places.

I appreciate the comments and interesting (and not interesting) tangents.

Another option for me would be to go with a Garmin 300XL as my IFR GPS
(those can now be had for very cheap) and go with the SL-30 as well.
(The SL-30 is actually really two nav radios in one, for those who
aren't aware - it can simultaneously tune two stations.)

The GRT EFIS talks to the 300XL as well which is good. My 2nd EFIS
screen would then be used mostly as a moving map to supplement the
300XL's display, which is lacking.

With this setup I can get down to $21K of equipment all-up with my IFR
backup analog stuff, transponder, etc. The only thing I am giving up
that I can see is WAAS approach capability - I don't believe the 300XL
is WAAS upgradable.


Paul Folbrecht wrote:

> I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
> wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
> panel. Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches in
> the near future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver to
> identify intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the 430
> does have one nav radio built-in.
>
> Only problematic area I can think of are the cases where 2 VOR receivers
> are pretty much necessary - to identify FAFs on ILS, LOC, and VOR (no
> GPS overlay) approaches. I release that ILS's almost always have an OM
> anyway and VOR IAPs w/no GPS overlay become scarcer by the month. With
> WAAS.. much less of a problem all around (WAAS precision approaches).
>
> If I decide I can do without another nav I save $2000 going with a SL-40
> (com only) vs a SL-30 (nav/com).
>
> Interesting in hearing from people with 430s (and up) how they are
> flying the things.
>
> (As for navigating with the 430 tango uniform - there's ATC vectors &
> the backup handheld GPS.)
>

[LCT Paintball]

.. I may have to get one of those hats with the
> built-in can holders and straws but I don't think they'll work with a
> headset. :)

I don't think that will work with your canopy either. Maybe you can make one
that you wear on your belt. ;)