KNS-80

[Bob Gardner]

Anyone currently flying with a KNS-80 please contact me directly. Thanx.

Bob Gardner

[[email protected]]

You really think anyone knows how to use that piece of junk?

I question the safety, even for the few pilots who might know how to use
it. The VOR system has deterioated quite a bit since the VOR Area Nav
studies were made in the 1970s. The box works on those old assumptions.

Bob Gardner wrote:

> Anyone currently flying with a KNS-80 please contact me directly. Thanx.
>
> Bob Gardner

[Julian Scarfe]

> wrote in message ...
> You really think anyone knows how to use that piece of junk?
>
> I question the safety, even for the few pilots who might know how to use
> it. The VOR system has deterioated quite a bit since the VOR Area Nav
> studies were made in the 1970s. The box works on those old assumptions.

A European perspective.

I started using the KNS80 in 1992 in our Mooney. The device made navigation
vastly easier than for those light aircraft that were stuck with only
conventional VOR receivers and DMEs, particularly operating off standard
routes -- particularly important in the UK where the airways tend only to
run between the bigger airports. I'm amazed that anyone would find it
difficult to use: it's an order of magnitude simpler than most IFR GPSs.
There are without doubt gotchas -- Garbage In Garbage Out with any piece of
avionics.

When GPS came along, first as handhelds for supplementary navigation, and
now in the form of all-singing-all-dancing IFR GPSs, the KNS80 got relegated
to a mostly secondary role as a backup NAV with DME. More recently in
Europe, FM immunity regulations have meant that most KNS80s are no longer
approved as NAV receivers (the filter package was about the price of a GPS,
so there was little uptake). Thus the KNS80 has become the heaviest,
bulkiest approved DME around. It's still there, though I haven't pressed
the Data button (to set up a waypoint) for a good while.

I don't see what "assumptions" are required for using a KNS80 over and above
that for a simple VOR/DME system. You still have VORs and DMEs, don't you?

Anyway, happy to help Bob if I can.

Julian Scarfe

[Bob Gardner]

Thanks, Julian...I received the help I needed.

Bob

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
news:7An2c.1635$re1.747@newsfe1-win...
> > wrote in message ...
> > You really think anyone knows how to use that piece of junk?
> >
> > I question the safety, even for the few pilots who might know how to use
> > it. The VOR system has deterioated quite a bit since the VOR Area Nav
> > studies were made in the 1970s. The box works on those old assumptions.
>
> A European perspective.
>
> I started using the KNS80 in 1992 in our Mooney. The device made
navigation
> vastly easier than for those light aircraft that were stuck with only
> conventional VOR receivers and DMEs, particularly operating off standard
> routes -- particularly important in the UK where the airways tend only to
> run between the bigger airports. I'm amazed that anyone would find it
> difficult to use: it's an order of magnitude simpler than most IFR GPSs.
> There are without doubt gotchas -- Garbage In Garbage Out with any piece
of
> avionics.
>
> When GPS came along, first as handhelds for supplementary navigation, and
> now in the form of all-singing-all-dancing IFR GPSs, the KNS80 got
relegated
> to a mostly secondary role as a backup NAV with DME. More recently in
> Europe, FM immunity regulations have meant that most KNS80s are no longer
> approved as NAV receivers (the filter package was about the price of a
GPS,
> so there was little uptake). Thus the KNS80 has become the heaviest,
> bulkiest approved DME around. It's still there, though I haven't pressed
> the Data button (to set up a waypoint) for a good while.
>
> I don't see what "assumptions" are required for using a KNS80 over and
above
> that for a simple VOR/DME system. You still have VORs and DMEs, don't
you?
>
> Anyway, happy to help Bob if I can.
>
> Julian Scarfe
>
>

[Bob Gardner]

I received a number of replies from pilots who are apparently very happy
with the "piece of junk."

Bob

> wrote in message ...
> You really think anyone knows how to use that piece of junk?
>
> I question the safety, even for the few pilots who might know how to use
> it. The VOR system has deterioated quite a bit since the VOR Area Nav
> studies were made in the 1970s. The box works on those old assumptions.
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
> > Anyone currently flying with a KNS-80 please contact me directly. Thanx.
> >
> > Bob Gardner
>

[[email protected]]

Bob Gardner wrote:

> I received a number of replies from pilots who are apparently very happy
> with the "piece of junk."

They are stuck somewhere in time and apparently have never tried a Garmin
400/500 series GPS.

[Tom Sixkiller]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
> > I received a number of replies from pilots who are apparently very happy
> > with the "piece of junk."
>
> They are stuck somewhere in time and apparently have never tried a Garmin
> 400/500 series GPS.

And those who fly 30, 40 and 50 year old aircraft must be stuck in a time
warp, huh? :~)

[Richard Kaplan]

> wrote in message ...>

> They are stuck somewhere in time and apparently have never tried a Garmin
> 400/500 series GPS.

Or perhaps they are diversifying their skills and keeping all options open.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[[email protected]]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

>
> Or perhaps they are diversifying their skills and keeping all options open.
>
>

In that case, you should add L/F four-course range simulation to your ground
trainer. Who knows, they might come back?

Seriously, from what I see, most pilots are not spending enough time with GPS
to master its use for IFR. Between that, ILS, and conventional VOR/DME, the
plate is already full without trying to master computed radials.

[Richard Kaplan]

> wrote in message ...>


>In that case, you should add L/F four-course range simulation to your
ground
>trainer. Who knows, they might come back?

As you correctly note, four-course ranges no longer exist, so there is no
purpose in learning or practicing their use.

Actually, I do not have a KNS-80 or other VOR/DME RNAV system in my
simulator; the KNS-80 is in my airplane. I agree with you there is no point
in a brand-new KNS-80 installation either in an airplane or in a simulator.
I am, however, debating in my mind whether to install a Garmin 430 vs. 530
later this year as part of an avionics upgrade, and I am leaning toward the
430 because it would save enough space to allow me to keep the KNS-80 and
thus maintain true DME and VOR/DME RNAV capability, two forms of navigation
which the Garmin 430/530 can only emulate based on GPS calculations.


> Seriously, from what I see, most pilots are not spending enough time with
GPS
> to master its use for IFR. Between that, ILS, and conventional VOR/DME,
the
> plate is already full without trying to master computed radials.

I am not saying someone should install a KNS-80 today as part of an avionics
upgrade. But it does not necessarily make sense either to remove it just
because a GPS is going in. You are correct that many pilots have not
mastered all features of their GPS; what is wrong with an instrument pilot
attaining proficiency in all installed avionics, including both GPS and
viable/workable alternatives like the KNS-80?

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[[email protected]]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

>
>
> Actually, I do not have a KNS-80 or other VOR/DME RNAV system in my
> simulator; the KNS-80 is in my airplane. I agree with you there is no point
> in a brand-new KNS-80 installation either in an airplane or in a simulator.
> I am, however, debating in my mind whether to install a Garmin 430 vs. 530
> later this year as part of an avionics upgrade, and I am leaning toward the
> 430 because it would save enough space to allow me to keep the KNS-80 and
> thus maintain true DME and VOR/DME RNAV capability, two forms of navigation
> which the Garmin 430/530 can only emulate based on GPS calculations.

The errors that the KNS-80 are subjected to are unquantifible at this point. If
the FAA were honest about it all, they would decertify the set for en route
operations.

Having used both the 530 and 430 I like the 530 a whole lot better. The big
display, and two separate map pages make it the clear choice if you can afford
it. Having said that, a 530 and a 430 make a great installation, too. You end
up with redundancy everywhere and use the 530 as your primary RNAV set.

Everything about the 530 is easier, including being able to see many more legs
or flight plans on FP pages 1 and 2.

[Richard Kaplan]

> wrote in message ...>


> The errors that the KNS-80 are subjected to are unquantifible at this
point. If
> the FAA were honest about it all, they would decertify the set for en
route
> operations.

Is this any worse than NDBs which have been used for quite some time?

> Everything about the 530 is easier, including being able to see many more
legs
> or flight plans on FP pages 1 and 2.

Easier? Yes.

Is there any more function or accuracy in a 530 than a 430? No.

> Having used both the 530 and 430 I like the 530 a whole lot better. The
big
> display, and two separate map pages make it the clear choice if you can
afford
> it. Having said that, a 530 and a 430 make a great installation, too.
You end

Cost is not the only issue -- panel space is an issue. That saves panel
space for other avionics.

Even better is crossfeeding a 530 or 430 to a handhdle 195 or 196 or 295.
A 430 crossfed to a Garmin handheld GPS is one of the best kept secrets of
avionics value... a 430 / 195 combination gives at least as much useful
information as a 530 at a dramatically reduced cost. It is actually better
than a 430/430 combination or 530/430 combination because (a) the handheld
Garmins provide an electronic HSI; and (b) the handheld Garmins serve as an
electrical backup. With crossfeed from the panel GPS to the handheld GPS, a
pilot would not even skip a beat transitioning to the portable GPS in the
event of a sudden complete electrical failure in IMC.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Otto Braasch]

Richard, today 9 MAR 2004 you wrote:
> ......................
> Even better is crossfeeding a 530 or 430 to a handhdle 195 or 196 or 295.
> A 430 crossfed to a Garmin handheld GPS is one of the best kept secrets of
> avionics value... a 430 / 195 combination gives at least as much useful
> information as a 530 at a dramatically reduced cost. It is actually better
> than a 430/430 combination or 530/430 combination because (a) the handheld
> Garmins provide an electronic HSI; and (b) the handheld Garmins serve as an
> electrical backup. With crossfeed from the panel GPS to the handheld GPS, a
> pilot would not even skip a beat transitioning to the portable GPS in the
> event of a sudden complete electrical failure in IMC.
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com

Could you reveal that secret of crossfeeding a 430 to a Garmin Handheld GPS
please?
I had just as backup and for user waypoint management a Garmin 196 installed at
the yoke of a 172 and would like to learn about that interesting crossfeeding. The
196 Pilot's Guide at page 96 under INTERFACE just holds a rather brief
statement on the topic:
<< Aviation In - the proprietary format used for connection to a Garmin
panel-mounted GPS receiver. Allows Goto or route selection on the panel
mounted GPS receiver to be automatically displayed on the GPSMAP 196. This
eliminates the need to enter the destination to both units. >>
And at page 100 under INTERFACING:
<< ... The following formats are supported for connection of external devices:
... Garmin proprietary aviation input, ... .
You can download a copy of Garmin's proprietary communication protocoll from
the Help and Support section of our website at www.garmin.com >>
Guess, it needs some tinkering of the avionic experts to make such connection
work?

Otto (EDML)

[Mike Rapoport]

The 530 has an "arc view" map page that the 430 does not. I find it to be
the most useful moving map page and use it all the time.

Mike
MU-2

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> > wrote in message ...>
>
>
> > The errors that the KNS-80 are subjected to are unquantifible at this
> point. If
> > the FAA were honest about it all, they would decertify the set for en
> route
> > operations.
>
> Is this any worse than NDBs which have been used for quite some time?
>
> > Everything about the 530 is easier, including being able to see many
more
> legs
> > or flight plans on FP pages 1 and 2.
>
> Easier? Yes.
>
> Is there any more function or accuracy in a 530 than a 430? No.
>
> > Having used both the 530 and 430 I like the 530 a whole lot better.
The
> big
> > display, and two separate map pages make it the clear choice if you can
> afford
> > it. Having said that, a 530 and a 430 make a great installation, too.
> You end
>
> Cost is not the only issue -- panel space is an issue. That saves panel
> space for other avionics.
>
> Even better is crossfeeding a 530 or 430 to a handhdle 195 or 196 or 295.
> A 430 crossfed to a Garmin handheld GPS is one of the best kept secrets of
> avionics value... a 430 / 195 combination gives at least as much useful
> information as a 530 at a dramatically reduced cost. It is actually
better
> than a 430/430 combination or 530/430 combination because (a) the handheld
> Garmins provide an electronic HSI; and (b) the handheld Garmins serve as
an
> electrical backup. With crossfeed from the panel GPS to the handheld GPS,
a
> pilot would not even skip a beat transitioning to the portable GPS in the
> event of a sudden complete electrical failure in IMC.
>
>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>
>

[John R. Copeland]

Glad you said that, Mike. I feel the same way.
I always keep the arc view on my CNX80 for navigation, while (mostly)
showing the "North-Up" map on my MX20 for situational awareness.
---JRC---

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message =
ink.net...
> The 530 has an "arc view" map page that the 430 does not. I find it =
to be
> the most useful moving map page and use it all the time.
>=20
> Mike
> MU-2
>

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, "Richard
Kaplan" > writes:

>Even better is crossfeeding a 530 or 430 to a handhdle 195 or 196 or 295.
>A 430 crossfed to a Garmin handheld GPS is one of the best kept secrets of
>avionics value... a 430 / 195 combination gives at least as much useful
>information as a 530 at a dramatically reduced cost.

Very interesting, Richard!
Tell me more (like how to do) as I have a 430 on the panel and a 195 on the
yoke and they are not sharing info. Do I need to go to the avionics shop and
get the connection to the 430? I don't remember any front panel controls and I
don't like going to the back. How do I tap into the 195 connector? I use
ships power to the 195 (with battery backup).

TIA
Chuck

[Richard Kaplan]

"Otto Braasch" > wrote in message
...


> Could you reveal that secret of crossfeeding a 430 to a Garmin Handheld
GPS
> please?

The details are in the Garmin 430/530 installation guide, which I can email
you directly if you wish as it is no longer available on the Garmin site.

You need to have your avionics shop do this (they certainly have the
installation guide); it is not particularly difficult.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> The 530 has an "arc view" map page that the 430 does not. I find it to be
> the most useful moving map page and use it all the time.

As I said, the 530 is easier to use but does not contain any functionality
that the 430 does not, i.e. there is no approach or other IFR function the
530 does that the 430 cannot do.

Sort of like the difference between an HSI vs. a DG and CDI... the HSI is
easier to use but does not give any additional functionality.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...

> Very interesting, Richard!
> Tell me more (like how to do) as I have a 430 on the panel and a 195 on
the
> yoke and they are not sharing info. Do I need to go to the avionics shop
and

Yes, it has to be connected by the avionics shop but it is a simple project
and well worth the effort.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Otto Braasch]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
> The details are in the Garmin 430/530 installation guide, which I can email
> you directly if you wish as it is no longer available on the Garmin site.
>
> You need to have your avionics shop do this (they certainly have the
> installation guide); it is not particularly difficult.

Thanks Richard - I will visit the shop tomorrow and have them check on the
manual.

Otto Braasch [EDML]

[John Harper]

One small but very handy thing the 530 DOES do is the
"DME" display. At the bottom left, it tells you the distance and
radial to the currently tuned VOR (you may need a software upgrade
to get this, I believe it was introduced some time in 2002).
This is as good as having a real DME for things which are
somewhat auxiliary to actual navigation, like knowing how far
you are from the center of Class B (invaluable for flying near
SFO for example).

John

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
>
>
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> > The 530 has an "arc view" map page that the 430 does not. I find it to
be
> > the most useful moving map page and use it all the time.
>
> As I said, the 530 is easier to use but does not contain any functionality
> that the 430 does not, i.e. there is no approach or other IFR function the
> 530 does that the 430 cannot do.
>
> Sort of like the difference between an HSI vs. a DG and CDI... the HSI is
> easier to use but does not give any additional functionality.
>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, "Richard
Kaplan" > writes:

>As I said, the 530 is easier to use but does not contain any functionality
>that the 430 does not, i.e. there is no approach or other IFR function the
>530 does that the 430 cannot do.

Only difference I know (besides bigger which is good for old eyes) is the 530
gives distance and vector to a selected VOR. The 430 will do this if you
select the VOR as a waypoint but the 530 will do it from the NAV select.

Chuck

[Richard Kaplan]

"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...

> Only difference I know (besides bigger which is good for old eyes) is the
530
> gives distance and vector to a selected VOR. The 430 will do this if you
> select the VOR as a waypoint but the 530 will do it from the NAV select.

It certainly is easier to get that information on the 530. Even on the 430
though all you need to do is turn to the Nearest VOR page and you can get
the same information without having to change your waypoint.

An even better solution -- as I mentioned previously -- is to crosslink a
portable Garmin with a 430. A Garmin 430/195 combination is even more
capable than a 530 at a much lower cost.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[[email protected]]

wrote:
: You really think anyone knows how to use that piece of junk?

: I question the safety, even for the few pilots who might know how to use
: it. The VOR system has deterioated quite a bit since the VOR Area Nav
: studies were made in the 1970s. The box works on those old assumptions.

: Bob Gardner wrote:

:> Anyone currently flying with a KNS-80 please contact me directly. Thanx.
:>
:> Bob Gardner

I beg to differ on this subject. Aside from the panel space and somewhat
hefty weight, the KNS-80 makes a great NAV. It is a functional (and almost cosmetic)
superset to the KN-53 STILL BEING SOLD! They can be had for a (relative) song since
everyone is removing them for GPS's. As mentioned before, the IFR GPS is only useful
to the extent you know how to use it. Something as dirt simple as a KNS-80 may not do
a whole lot, but it's extremely easy to use. I don't think ILS's have been replaced
by IFR GPS's quite yet... as much as people want them to.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Richard Kaplan]

> wrote in message
...
> to the extent you know how to use it. Something as dirt simple as a
KNS-80 may not do
> a whole lot, but it's extremely easy to use. I don't think ILS's have
been replaced
> by IFR GPS's quite yet... as much as people want them to.

And even when airplanes have an approach-capable IFR GPS unit, in my
experience a good bit of the time the database is not updated at every
cycle.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, "Richard
Kaplan" > writes:

>It certainly is easier to get that information on the 530. Even on the 430
>though all you need to do is turn to the Nearest VOR page and you can get
>the same information without having to change your waypoint.
>

Thanks for the tip, Richard. I hadn't thought of using that page. However, I
like to keep that group on nearest airport in case I need it for emergency.
Select the first airport and push "direct to" and enter and you are aimed at
the nearest airport. With "VSR" (vertical speed required) as one of the data
field, you will quickly know if you can make it since you know your sink rate
in glide.

Also, I fly in the Cleveland area and generally want to know distance to CLE to
avoid class B. Well, the CLE DME channel doesn't show in the VOR list( at
least not on the simulator), so your solution doesn't work all the time. I
presume that you could set the frequency (109.9) on the 530 and get the
distance.

Anyway, a quick check at my electronics shop gives about $5k to upgrade and the
530 won't fit in one stack with the audio panel and a second radio. So I have
two reasons the be satisfied with the 430. The plane is in the shop now to get
the 330 transponder addition so that is my "money spend" for this year.
Chuck

[Richard Kaplan]

"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...
> Select the first airport and push "direct to" and enter and you are aimed
at
> the nearest airport. With "VSR" (vertical speed required) as one of the
data

Even easier... Hit DIRECT and turn the large knob to the "NRST" field and
hit ENTER.

> Also, I fly in the Cleveland area and generally want to know distance to
CLE to
> avoid class B. Well, the CLE DME channel doesn't show in the VOR list( at

Why won't it show up? Must be a bug in the sim only.


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

www.flyimc.com